ED 079 837

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

REPORT NOPUB DATEGRANTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

DOCUMENT RESUME

95 EA 005 281

Knezevich, SteveManagement by Objectives and Results -- a Guidebookfor Today's School Executive.American Association of School Administrators,Washington, D.C.American Association of School Administrators,Washington, D.C. National Academy for SchoolExecutives.; Office of Education (DIEM, Washington,D.C.AASA-021-00396[73]OEG-0-71-313580p.American Association of School Administrators, 180.1North Moore Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209 (StockNumber 021-00396, $4.00,Quantity Discoupts)

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS *Administrator Guides; Administrator Responsibility;

Cooperative Planning; Decision Making; *EducationalAccountability; *Educational Administration;*Educational Objectives; Educational Planning;Leadership; Management; *Management Systems; Models;Organizational Change; Organizational Climate;Problem Solving; Systems.Approach

IDENTIFIERS *Management by Objectives

ABSTRACTThis text is of a series of three handbooks, each

intended to provide busy educational executives with a brief,practical overview of one major issue or movement. This book aims atproviding both the theoretical base of the management by objectivesand results (MBO /R) system of management and suggestions for itspractical application..The author first discusses the relation ofMBO/R to the field. of education, the MBO/R system as a personnelmanagement system, and MBO/R as a comprehensive management system. Hethen explains how to generate and work with educational objectives,In an effort to assist administrators in managing for vies1.1fs andoperations in the MBO/R mode, the author next considers programing toproduce a work plan, allocating resources, monitoring to determineprogress, and controlling to keep the organization on target; andsets out some strategies to implement an MBO/R system..A generalchange model is included, and the phases readiness, pilot testing,innovation management, followup, and institutionalization arediscussed. Related documents are EA 005 233 and EA 005 282.(Author/DN)

r--reN,a)c3T

Management,. by Objectivesu., and Results

a guidebook fortoday's school executive

Prepared forAASA National Academy

for School Executives

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHEDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT H.S BEEN REPRODUCEO EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEOUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

Published byAmerican Association

of School Administrators1801 North Moore StreetArlington, Virginia 22209

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

tr

The work presented in this handbook wasperformed pursuant to Grant No. 0EG-0-71-3135from the Office of Education, U.S. Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare. However, the opin-ions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the

position or policy of the Office of Education, and noofficial endorsement by the Office of Educationshould be inferred.

Single copy, $4.002-9 copies, 10 percent discount10 or more copies, 20 percent discount

Stock number: 021-00396

All members of the American Association ofSchool Administrators receive a copy of this book aspart of their 1973 membership.

FOREWORD

There is a story often told about a man and his wife who aredriving speedily through the countryside. The wife finally asks herhusband whether or not he knows where he is. The husband repliesthat he is lost but that he is certainly making good time.

Management by objectives and results should help administra-tors differentiate between movement and progress, and in the

process enable them to establish more clearly the goals towardwhich the school wants to move and their progress toward thesegoals.

The adoption of a system of management by objectives andresults elevates purpose to a high order of priority in the activitiesof a school. It makes all of those who are in a school more con-scious of why they are there and what they must do to achieve theirpurpose. Students, teachers, admirdstrators, and support personnelare all involved.

This publication shows a way to those who would establishsuch a system of management. It gives not only the theoretical basebut suggestions for practical application. It goes beyond the usualpublication in that it talks not only about management by objectivesbut also about the results. This addition is very important, for theresults become the motivating factors for further progress. Detractorsof scientific management systems are often prone to state that suchsystems dehumanize a school and that they would rather be lesssystematic and more humane. A careful reading of this book willemphasize that management by objectives and results need notdehumanize a school; rather, it can be used to further humanize one.

This handbook was commissioned as one in a series of threeproduced under a grant from the U.S. Office of Education. It is

Hi

intended to provide busy educational executives a brief, practicaloverview of a major issue or movement.

Steve Knezevich, the author, has done a skillful job. It iscertainly worthy of careful study by all who would seek a moreeffective way for administering schools.

AASA and its National Academy for School Executives takethis occasion to recognize the many contributions of William H.Curtis in arranging for, overseeing, and reviewing the MBO/Pmanuscript prepared by S. J. Knezevich. Dr. Curtis' time andspecial efforts made it possible to meet the tight schedule for thedissemination project. Likewise, the many additional hours andpressures faced by Mrs. Cleo H. Coenen of Madison, Wisconsin,in the typing of the various drafts of this publication are worthy ofrecognition. AASA and its National Academy for School Executivesappreciate Cleo's services to the project.

Paul B. SalmonExecutive Secretary, AASA

iv

CONTENTS

Foreword

Chapter

1. MBO/R and the Dynamic Profession

2. MBO/R as a Personnel Management System 9

3. MBO/R as a Comprehensive Management System 23

4. Generating and Working with Objectives 355. Managing for Results and Operations

in the MBO/R Mode _ .... . .. ._ 49

6. MBO/R Implementation Strategies . 63

Selected Bibliography . 75

Ii

CHAPTER 1

MBO/Rand the Dynamic

Profession

Administration is a function that is crucial to the success ofevery enterprise. Why? Because administration

Influences the direction and priorities of the enterprise.

Decides what strategies will be used to reach objectives.

Can make people within the enterprise more productive orless effective.

Can influence results achieved.

Is a unifying and coordinating force within the organization.

Helps to ensure prudent use of scarce .fiscal and materialresources.

Appraises the quality of services, products, or other outcomes.

Shapes to a considerable degree the image and prestige ofthe enterprise.

Other contributions could be added to this list. The point isthat complex educational institutions cannot operate effectively

without administration. The type and quality of administrativeservices and personnel influence the relevance and very survivalof schools. Administrators (mai lagers) have been called a "basicresource," the "sParcest" and most precious resource in anenterprise.'

Just a word about use of the term management as opposedto administration. The latter term is by far the more popular ineducational literature. Until recently school executives viewedmanagement as a demeaning term that emphasized the mechanicalaspects and failed to recognize the leadership dimensions of theirpositions. Now, however, the term (which has long had a most

1

I

,--

favorable connotation in other fields) is gaining rapid acceptanceamong educators. Management and administration will be usedinterchangeably in this book and will be considered to be synony-mous. Administrative (managerial) personnel in education are thosewho support, stimulate, or in other ways work with and through otherpersons (e.g., teachers) who have more direct contact with andinteract more frequently with learners. The learner and the needsof society are important focal points for both instructional andadministrative personnel.

At one time the primary emphasis in educational administrationwas placed on issues unique to schools, such as educationalfinance, school plant design, school business management, legalaspects of education, curriculum and instruction. These issuesremain important, but the horizons of educational administrationhave expanded. The new emphasis is on such issues as

Decision making.

Leadership.

Politics.

Social systems.

Management science.

Process (e.g., planning, organizing, stimulating, coordinating,appraising).

Since MBO/R (management-by-objectives-and-results) isprocess oriented, a further review of what is meant by administrationas a process is in order. Viewing administration in this way em-phasizes those tasks that are shared by all administrators, regardlessof the type of institution they administer: tasks involving finance,space, personnel, and other "universal" concerns. Even Socrateshinted strongly that there was a universal administrative process.But only around the turn of this century did there begin to be anyreal attempts to discover the essence of administration, to extractand define its common elements.

Henri Fayol started it all by calling attention to essentials thatmust be executed in every managed organization, such as planning,organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling. Later theterm POSDCORB, developed by Gulick and Urwick, became ratherpopular. The letters stand for planning, organizing, staffing, direct-ing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting.

Levels of abstraction have often been used to describe theadministrative process. A first order, or high level, of abstractionwould include such activities as planning, decision making, exe-cuting, and appraising. These activities could also go on in the next2

level of abstraction, which would include the administrator's in-volvement in goal orienting, organizing, assembling and allocatingresources, leading, coordinating, controlling, and performing cere-monial functions. There are at least 10 other lists that attempt todescribe things all administrators ao or should be concerned with.

Educational administration has been enriched by the con-tributions of experts in many disciplines. Economists, behavioralscientists, anthropologists, and management scientists have donemuch to change the direction of the research and literature in ourfield. It is no longer unusual to find ideas that had their origins inother fields being modified and interwoven into first the literatureand eventually the practice of educational administration.

Enter MBO/RMBO/R (management-by-objectives-and-results) tends to put

the focus on generalizable functions (processes) that must be per-formed by the administrators of any type of institution, regardlessof its basic purpose or value orientation. MBO was developed firstfor business and industrial management but is now gaining accept-ance, with some modifications, in educational administration. The'R' for results was a later addition, to focus the efforts of administra-tors on results management and to minimize the possibility ofstopping after identification of objectives. In al; fairness to theoriginators of MBO, it must be said that the term objective impliedknowing what should be done and accomplishing it. In this broadinterpretation, adding the 'R' is redundant. The time frame is whatmakes the difference. Objectives-setting is the preliminary stage,and results the culmination stage. In this sense an objective may beinterpreted to mean "results expected."

The name of the MBO/R game is achievement. The idea is tohelp managers throughout the system to win organizational objec-tives. It is much easier to set objectives than it is to manage withthem. MBO/R is not so much an additional burden as it is anotherway of discharging the responsibilities assigned to the administrativeteam. To repeat, MBO/R is a set of processes, a generalizableapproach that can be adapted to a variety of institutions, includingeducation.

MBO/R is based on the notion that organizations are createdto accomplish common purposes. In this sense all organizationsare goal-seeking mechanisms, that is, agencies dedicated to therealization c.: stated objectives. Goals and objectives, therefore,become significant variables in the administrative process. Theyare important starting points and give direction and meaning to

3

subsequent activities. Formulating objectives, winning commitmentof all personnel to them, clustering resources around objectives, andmanaging to obtain desired results are really the essence of MBO/R.These concerns should receive high priority in the crowded timeschedules of executives at all levels seeking to operate in this mode.

MBO, at least as a formal term, is of fairly recent origin. MBO/Ris even more recent. Some writers argue that successful administra-tors (managers) followed the spirit of management-by-objectives-and-for-results long before the term was coined. Credit is usuallygiven to Peter Drucker and Douglas McGregor= for developingmore fully the various dimensions of the MBO concept during the1950's. Since then a number of books and articles on MBO andMBO/R in business and industry have been generated (see selectedbibliography at the back of this book). Articles applying MBO toeducation began to appear in the early 1970's, but they were re!a-tively few and far between.

MBO and MBO/R Definitions

Not everyone defining MBO and MBO /R stresses the samethings. The most frequently used definition of MBO is the following,developed in 1965 by G. S. Odiorne:

The system of management by objectives can be described asa process whereby the superior anr'. subordinate jointly identifygoals, define individual major areas of responsibility in termsof results expected of him, and use these measures as guidesfor operating the unit and assessing the contribution of each ofits members.3

This definition suggests how objectives are to be determined:,jointly by the superior and subordinate. About five years laterOdiorne offered a briefer definition of MBO as "a system in whichthe first step of management is the clarification of corporate ob-jectives and the breaking down of all subordinate activity into logicalsubdivisions that contribute to the major objectives." 4

Schreiber and Sloan viewed MBO as "a management processby which work is organized in terms of achieving specific objectivesby set times." :" Ryan placed more emphasis on leadership, theteam approach, and people:

Management by objectives is a method of leadership whichsuccessful executives have been using ,or generations. Itrequires the individual executive to develop his own managerialobjectives as part of a team striving foi a corporate objectiveagreed and understood by all. It allows the individual executiveto accomplish the required results in his own way, so long as

4

this does not interfere with achievement of his own or cor-porate objectives. In short: you organize your subordinates tohelp you win your objectives.6

Iviorrisey saw MBO/F1 as a management approach that soughtto determine-

1. What must be done (after careful analysis of why it must bedone).

2. How it must be done (the program steps or plan of action re-quired to accomplish it).

3. When it must be done.

4. How much it will cost.

5. What constitutes satisfactory performance.

6. How much progress is being achieved.

7. When and how to take corrective action.?

For the purposes of this volume, MBO/R is one side of educa-tion-by-objectives-and-results (EBO/R) and is a system of operationthat enables the organization and its personnel to identify, movetoward, and lock onto objectives as well as to manage more effec-tively for desired results.

It can be said that neither MBO nor MBO/R is a profoundconcept interwoven into a complex system. Many writers stressedthe importance of objectives long before MBO became popular.It is the quality of the objectives, the manner in which objectives areset, and the management of the organization to achieve them thatare somewhat new. The execution phase of MBO/R represents thereal challenge to educational and nonprofit institutions with a serviceorientation. Such institutions will find MBO/R far more difficult toput into practice than business and industry have.

Why EBO/R?MBO/R is an attitude or a manner in which administrators fulfill

their present responsibilities. It will not be implemented in preciselythe same way in all institutions. This guidebook seeks to adapt themanagement style called MBO/R to educational enterprises. Oneof the first steps will be to limit the term MBO/ 3 to the managementside of the educational institution. Teachers are the most numerousprofessional personnel in sohools and resist any attempt to identifythem with management. What teachers accept or reject will havea profound impact within the educational enterprise. If the totaleducational organization is to be committed to using objectives asaids to the achievement of results, then teachers, who outnumber

5

administrators almost twenty to one, must come to accept the newapproach and be an integral part of the new mode of operation

Recognition that important instructional personnel may beturned off by terminology used and found acceptable in business andindustry led to the search for a better way of identifying a Eys lcm ofoperation that enables an organization and its personnel to identify,move toward, and lock onto objectives as well as to manage for

desired results. The term EBO/R (education-by-objectives-and-results) was coined to meet the special needs of the total educationalorganization. It is submitted as a more accurate and comprehensivedescription of the system. MBO/R, therefore, becomes one of twocomponents and can be defined as EBO/R from the managementside of the enterprise. MBO/R could also be identified as EAO/R,that is, educational administration-by-objectives-and-results. IBO/R,instruction-by-objectives-and-results, is the other component; it isEBO/R from the instructional personnel side of the enterprise To

summarize, EBO/R = MBO/R + IBO/R. Because this guidebookis addressed to school administrators, its major emphasis will beon MBO/R.

What Can MBO/R Co?MBO/R as a process may be the key to greater managerial

effectiveness in schools, depending on the quality of the systemdesign and its execution. Why? Various writers answer that questionby pointing to administraive functions to which MBO/R can con-tribute, such as

Giving direction to the organization (MBO/R helps to identifyand describe what must be done).Determining priorities for the organization (MBO/R facilitatesthe rank ordering of what must be done in multipurpose institu-tions such as schools).Deciding (MBO/R helps to provide a rational basis for takingone course of action as opposed to another).Exercising leadership (MBO/R suggests a style of motivatingand working with personnel).Allocating resources (MBO/R provides a basis for allocatingscarce resources among competing activities).Controlling and monitoring operations (MBO/R helps to identifywhat to look for in determining how well the organization is

moving toward results).Appraising managerial performance (MBO/R suggests a way toevaluate the performance of administrative personnel).

Describing administrative positions (MBO/R points to a newway of defining what is expected of administrators).

Selecting new personnel (MBO/R suggest, ;nr look for..3in identifying and selecting personnel for sL rr...T.

tions).

Developing administrative personne! (MBO/R provides a basisfor planning career development programs for managerialpersonnel).

Identifying corrective action that should be taken (MBO/R helpsto spot problem areas where corrective action is necessary).

Determining an orderly growth sequence.

Assessing what results have been achieved.

To accomplish all of the above is a tall order. MBO/R may bea way of doing things, but it carries no guarantees. The basicstrategy of MBO/R is to focus on objectives and results. How wellthis strategy is implemented will determine how many of the aboveadministrative concerns are realized with success.

Two major and closely related interpretations of MBO/R appearin the growing literature in this field. They are not mutually exclu-sive; varying degrees of .-,ver lap will be evident. One interpretationstresses the impact of tv1BO/R on people. This personnel emphasiswill be called the human relationsoriented" concept of MBO/Rand will be the subjc,,t of the next chapter. The second interpreta-tion is more comprehensive in scope and looks at the impact ofMBO/R on the total enterprise. It will be called the "systemsmanagement oriented" concept of MBO/R and will be describedmore fully in Chapter 3.

SUMMARY

Administration is a crucial function influencing many dimen-sions of an institution. Complex educational institutions would findit difficult to operate, remain relevant, or survive for very longwithout administrators. In this guidebook the terms managementand administration will be synonymous.

Educational administration has changed. More emphasis isbeing placed on issues other than such traditional substantive onesas school finance and school plant design. Administration is tringperceived as a set of common processes important to the operationof all types of institutions. These processes include planning,making decisions, executing, and appraising, as well as settinggoals, organizing, assembling and allocating resources, leading,

7

coordinating, controlling, and performing ceremonial functions.MBO/R is process oriented.

MBO came out of business administration. The 'R' v'ss addedto produce MBO/R, management-by-objectives-and-results, tominimize the possibility of stopping after objectives were identifiedand agreed upon. The name of the MBO/R game is achievement.Formulating of objectives, winning commitment to them, clusteringresources around them, and managing to obtain desired resultsrepresent the essence of MBO/R. MBO and MBO/R are not pro-found concepts interwoven into a complex system. For purposes ofthis volume MBO/R is one side of EBO/R, education-by-objectives-and-results, a system of operation that enables an educationalorganization and its personnel to identify, move toward, and lockonto objectives as well as to manage more effectively for desiredresults. In essence, EBO/R = MBO/R + IBO/R, where MBO/Ris EBO/R from the administrative side and IBO/R is EBO/R fromthe instructional side. This book is addressed to administrators andso will emphasize MBO/R.

NOTES

1 Drucker, P. F. The Practice ofManagement. New York: Harper-Row,1954. p. 111.

2 McGregor, D. The Human Sideof Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

3 Odiorne, G. S. Management byObjectives. New York: Pitman, 1965.p. 55.

4 . Training by Ob-jectives. New York: The MacmillanCo., 1970. p. 97.

8

Schreiber, D. E., and Sloan, S."Management by Objectives." Person-nel Administrator 15: 20-26; May-June1970.

6 Ryan, Joseph. "How To MBO."Management Today, April 1971. pp.66-70.

Morrisey, G. I. Managementby Objectives and Results. Reading,Alas.. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.,1970. p. 3.

CHAPTER 2

MBO/Ras a Personnel

ManagementSystem

Administrators make things happen, for better or for worse,through other people. Most educational organizations today are fartoo complex for a single individual to execute all the many and variedtasks related to goal achievement. If it is true that people makethings happen, then what motivates them, what helps them togrow in confidence, and what enhances their morale are important.Some suggest that an administrator is only as good as the peoplewith whom he works. Administrators are called upon time and timeagain to increase the productivity of their staff.

This chapter is concerned with the humar relations dimensionof MBO/R and the leadership strategies that are consistent with it.MBO/R can have an impact on such significant concerns as staffappraisal, position description, professional development, and per-sonnel motivation. The target population in business and industryis managerial personnel; MBO/R is concerned with the "managingof managers." The prime target for this volume will be educationaladministrators.

Perceptions of MBO/R as a dehumanizing, mechanical ap-proach are misguided. MBO/R recognizes the importance ofadministrators as people. More often than not, MBO/R is introducedfirst as an approach to personnel management or human relations.It is a way of putting leadership concepts into practice. In fact,MBO/R might well be interpreted as "leadership-by-objectives-and-results." It is leadership in the broadest sense of the term. Otherinterpretations of MBO/R in the literature and practice might moreprecisely be described as "personnel-management-by-objectives-and-results," PMBO/R.

9

J

Once again, not everyone adopting MBO/R interprets it thesame way or emphasizes Ele same things. One interpretation mayfocus on what stimulates people to greater productivity, another onwhat can contribute to their growth in professional competenceWhatever the specific interpretation, MBO/R remains a people-oriented approach and attempts to integrate the needs and objec-tives of the individual administrator with the demands and goals ofthe organization (here, the school system).

Douglas McGregor, one of the early proponents of MBO, wr' teabout the human side of the enterprise.' He argued that one'sperceptions or views of people will influence both one's style ofadministration and the design of the organizational structure. Hepopularized two sets of contrasting assumptions about human beingsand their relation to work, popularly called Theory X and Theory Y.

According to Theory X, the typical individual has an inherentdislike of work and will avoid it if possible. He prefers to be toldwhat to do, avoids responsibility, won't work any harder than isabsolutely necessary (is lazy), possesses little ambition, seekssecurity above all, strives to get more money any way he can, and isinherently selfish, having little or no regard for his co-worker ororganization. The chief administrator who holds this rather grimview of human nature "has no choice" but to structure a system ofoperation based on careful supervision of subordinates, close controlof operations with frequent checks, detailed direction of all activities,and frequent use of threats of punishment such as firing or with-holding salary increments to motivate (accompanied by the generoususe of a kick in the right place). Theory X suggests that there isno point in wasting time getting people involved, because it is

"human nature" to show little creativity and to avoid doing anymore than one has to. Delegation of responsibilities is risky; if themanager wants anything done right, he'd better do it himself!

Theory Y stands in stark contrast to Theory X. According toTheory Y, the typical worker considers it natural to expend physicaland mental effort in work as well as in play. Under the properconditions an employee will not only accept greater responsibilitybut will seek to earn it. The typical worker has a relatively highdegree of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity. Furthermore, he isforever seeking ways to express these talents in the solution oforganizational problems. Ambition is a natural phenomenon, butit is fragile and can be destroyed by unfavorable circumstances.Economic rewards have some influence in stimulating work, butnonmonetary recognition and the personal satisfaction of achievingdifficult assignments are the more powerful stimulants of humanbehavior. Man is by nature gregarious and is more productive in10

groups than in isolation. Each person seeks to grow to his fullpotential and to achieve self-direction. He likes to be involved andidentified with his work environment and the total organization. Leftto himself he can, if the situation is right, contribute much to anyorganization.

A different type of organizational pattern is created by mana-gers who hold to Theory Y. They provide less "snoopervision" andgreater freedom for employees to perform their responsibilities; lessdirection and more involvement; less emphasis on centralized con-trol and more nn self-direction and self-control. They rely less onthreats of punishment to motivate, and more on opportunities forcreative expression and nor.monetary rewards, such as recognition.

It can be assumed that the typical administrator will be moreproductive if he knows and accepts what he does as related to theobjectives of the organization, if he has the resources necessaryto reach the objectives, and if he is asked to accomplish things

within his realm of competency. This sounds like Theory Y and alsolike MBO/R. MBO/R may be viewed as a mode of operation that

seeks to produce an environment where creativity may be stimulatedand the self-directed manager may emerge. The goal is to make theorganization a more productive place of work suitable for the humanbeings within it. MBO/R can be viewed as a system for managingpeople better. As Schleh put it, to accomplish his objectives amanager manages men." The aim of what he called "resultsmanagement" was to "integrate the work of the individual towardthe over-all objectives of the institution with his own personal

interests and desires."'The remainder of this chapter will consider the implications

of MBO/R for four dimensions of personnel relations: performance

appraisal, job descriptions, professional growth programs, andmotivation.

MBO/R and Performance Appraisal

Personnel evaluation is an old but persistent concern in allorganizations. Legislatures, school boards, and people in generalwant proof of the effectiveness of personnel. MBO in many indus-trial organizations came to be equated with a unique approach tothe appraisal of managerial personnel. School systems were at-tracted to MBO by the need to design a system for evaluation of

principals and others. What many school systems call MBO endsup in fact as an approach to appraisal of the administrativepersonnel. 1-;)

11

J

Odiorne 3 refers to this conception of MBO as a "resultsoriented appraisal system," where stated goals or objectives replacepersonality traits as appraisal criteria. Heier 4 argues that MBO canbe implemented without appraisal by results, even though suchoutcome-oriented evaluation systems call for the setting of objectivesand/or tasks. He concludes that "because appraisal by results is areinforcing extension of management by objectives, most organiza-tions adopt both programs simultaneously." The basic idea behindthis approach to performance appraisal is the development of "anagreement between a subordinate and his superior that the formerwill meet a certain objective, or series of objectives, within anagreed-upon length of time." 3 In short, superior and subordinatenot only set targets' but also review in advance the possible waysof reaching them and the resources that will be necessary.

Evaluation by jointly determined job targets is not entirely newto education. Redfern and others have long espoused "cooperativeappraisal" or the "job target" approach to performance appraisalin the field of education!, This approach has been used primarilyfor instructional rather than administrative personnel, but it re-

sembles what in business and industry is called appraisal byresults or, more specifically, "manarment personnel-evaluation-by-objectives-and-results"MPEBO/R. There are some subtledifferences. in education a job target focuses on an individualprofessional goal, such as learning a new instructional strategy orsubject matter content. In business and industry the focus is onthe contributions the individual makes to the objectives of theorganization, although personal development may not be ignored.

Although it is not necessarily the simplest aspect of MBO/Rto put into practice, administrative personnel appraisal by results isperhaps the most frequently implemented dimension of MBO/R inschools and can be used as a starting point for working in this mode.Obviously, if it becomes a terminal point, MBO/R's inherent poten-tial for education will not be realized. The emphasis on jointdetermination of, or agreement on, objectives is important. Hope-fully, there will be no irreconcilah',.% cllfferences at this crucial stage.The objectives set should be challengingthat is, should stimulatethe appraisee to higher levels of effectiveness, and, therefore, in-creased productivity in the organization. What work standards, ifany, shall apply is a point of contention in implementing such asystem. Zeroing in on and giving appropriate weight to the moreimportant objectives is another of the many operational concerns.

McGregor suggested that the "God complex" of some evalua-tors in arriving at judgments about a person's worth may bethe most important reason why most appraisal systems don't work12

very well. With the individual appraisee helping to set his own goals,

appraisal becomes more like a coaching or counseling session,

minimizing the chances That the "God complex" will appear.It is beyond the scope of this volume to outline in detail the

results-oriented appraisal dimension of MBO/R, although it is per-

haps the most popular interpretation of what MBO/R is all about in

education.

Outcomes-Oriented Job Descriptionsand "Management Contracts"

If appraisal is to be tied to results, which in turn call for the

prior determination of objectives, it follows logically that job descrip-

tions may likewise be based on results. Describing in detail the

position of a principal, supervisor, superintendent, or other school

executive is not a common practice. In the rare district where there

are precise descriptions, they are traditionally "input-oriented,"

setting forth activities or functions to be performed rather than

results to be achieved. There is an implicit faith that pursuit of a

set of activities will contribute to the successful operation of an

institution, even though there are no hard data to reveal the rela-

tionship between a given activity and hoped-for results. There is

some comfort in the traditional pattern, for one can be very busy

executing activities, and "busyness" may convey the image that

something is being accomplished.Operating in the MBO/R mode calls for job descriptions that

emphasize results rather than activities to be performed. The activi-

ties come after objectives are specified. The focus is on managing

for results, so activities may be expanded, eliminated, or reassigned

as the need arises. In the MBO/R mode, the school principal is not

told that his job is to turn in certain reports on a stated schedule,

supervise teachers, handle discipline problems, or .ake tickets at all

athletic events. Rather, the principal and his immediate superior

jointly determine what can reasonably be anticipated as his con-

tributions to total system goals. In the MBO/R mode the principal

agrees that such outcomes as a given level of pupil learning, teacher

morale, or community acceptance may be anticipated by the end of

a certain period of time.The MBO/R mode represents a fundamental shift in the way

school administrators view their positions. It will call for a radical

change in attitudes among school administrators for whom execu-

tion of a well-established set of activities has become a way of life.

It is no easy matter to switch to output-oriented position descrip-

tions. The typical administrator isn't quite sure what constitutes a13

feasible set of outcomes for his position, much less how thesemight be articulated. Staff development is essential to facilitate theswitch to thinking in terms of outputs and to help administratorsbecome skilled in generating meaningful objectives for their posi-tions. More will be said about this kind of staff development inChapter 6.

The combination of results-oriented appraisal plus output-oriented position descriptions may lead to what some have identifiedas "management contracts" for administrators. These are informal,not legal, contracts, the products of joint deliberation and deter-mination by an administrator and his immediate superior. They mayspecify the contributions of the unit administered by a subordinatemanager to the overall goals of the system. To illustrate, a principaland an assistant superintendent for secondary education wouldagree on priority concerns for the principal's school, results ex-pected for learners and staff, and time limits for the accomplishmentof each objective. The emphasis would be on a set of achievabletargets, that is, those within the principal's capability and previoushistory of success. The objectives should be feasible in terms ofthe state of knowledge or technology, the resources available, andthe principal's skills and competencies.

Thus the management contract should describe how a givenadministrator expects to contribute to organizational and/or majordivision goals. If it merely describes functions to be performed, if itmerely catalogs what the administrator is already doing or is unre-lated to the overall objectives of the system, it has missed the wholespirit behind MBO/R.

The management contract also becomes an initial step in theadministrator evaluation system. Again, it bears a striking similarityto what Redfern calls cooperative appraisal (as opposed to unilateraldetermination in the typical systems) and job target appraisal. Atthe end of a given period the subordinate and superior sit down todetermine what in the management contract was achieved andwhat was not.

Levinson saw MBO as "closely related to performance ap-praisal and review." He viewed it as a practice intended to

Measure and judge performance.

Relate individual performance to organizational goals.

Clarify both the job to be done and expectations of accom-plish ment.

Foster the increasing competence and growth of the subor-dinate.

Enhance communications between superior and subordinate.14

r

Serve as a basis for judgments about salary and promotion.

Motivate the subordinate.

Serve as a device for organizational control and integration'

Levinson recognized the shortcomings of what sou ads r itionalwhen it is put on paper. "No matter how detailed a job t$ escriotion,it is essentially static, that is, a series of statements." Hy obs..rvedthat "the higher a man rises in an organization and the n- are v ledand subtle his work, the more difficult it is to pin down lbjec ,vesthat represent more than a fraction of his effort." In pra<:tice theremay be a tendency in writing job descriptions to stat what heindividual does in his work rather than what is needed to accomplishgoals.

One of the serious shortcomings of the so-called managementcontract is goal displacement, that is, the tendency to emphasizethose things easiest b accomplish or to appraise rather than thosethat contribute most to overall organizational goals. Levinsonpointed out the danger that the typical MBO effort may perpetuateand intensify "hostility, resentment, and distrust between a managerand subordinate."

The relationship of appraisal by results to salaries paid andincrements awarded remains a controversial one. Some of theresistance encountered in implementing MBO/R may be related tothe fear not only of appraisal per se but of the appraisal's economiceffect on the appraisee. This fear among teachers may explain whysome teacher organizations have gone on record as resisting theintroduction of MBO/R. There may be a propensity for school boardmembers and other lay persons to consider MBO/R as the solutionto the merit pay problem,, but there is little in the experience thusfar to warrant this view. The reverse may occurthat is, MBO/Rmay lose its inherent potential if it receives too much emphasis asa tool for determining the compensation of administrators.

Professional Growth by Objectives and Results

Drucker 9 identified "the making of a productive enterprise outof human and material resources" as a most important manage-ment function. He viewed the enterprise as something more thansimpiy a mechanical assemblage of resources. Getting the most outof the available talent and related resources is a perpetual challengeto administrators. There are limitations to nonhuman resources, butas Drucker poinied out, "man, alone of all the resources available toman, can grow and develop." 10

15

t

Many people have observed that the stock of education, that is,the skills and understanding acquired by an individual, represents aform of capital. Such capital may depreciate as much as physicalcapital. It becomes imperative, therefore, for the top level executiveto maintain the effectiveness of all talent, but particularly that atmanagerial levels, by giving it opportunities to grow.

Often the allocation of funds for professional growth is con-sidered somewhat of a luxury, to be indulged in only when a surplusof money is available When funds are tight there is a commontendency to cut back on training in favor of other operational con-cerns. But, as Odiorne 11 has indicated, there are certain organiza-tions that consider professional growth of managerial staff to be anormal productive expenditure. The military calls training one ofthe four major management functions. In the private sector, Odiornehas pointed out,

The average employee and supervisor in the Bell TelephoneCompany, for example, spends an average of 20% of his timein training, according to one estimate. The typical GeneralMotors manager spends approximately the same amount oftime in training.22MBO/R as a special kind of appraisal system, a new approach

to job description, or even a set of "management contracts" maybe considered means or inputs into MBO/R as a unique approachto professional managerial staff development. Appraisal by results,in particular, may reveal the kinds of special training needed to givethe administrator an opportunity to know his position better thananyone else, to integrate system objectives with managerial efforts,and to become a self-starter within the organization. Of course, notall training programs are cast in the MBO/R mode. But MBO/Rcreates a work climate that encourages indiv-',ci u.,! administrators todevelop to their fullest while executing their respunsibility for

fulfilling the objectives of the system.Again, the chief strategem is to obtain ag eement on objeci:ves

so that the administrator has a clear idea of what is expected of him,what opportunities are available, and how well he is doing. In thissense MBO/R is operationalized through a set of training programsthat are part of the human development system focusing primarilyon managerial personnel as key individuals in the organization. Thissubset of MBO/R may be called "training-by-objectives-and-re-sults" or "development-by-objectives-and-results."

Odiorne i. classified training needs or obectives into threemajor categories:

1. Regular training objectives2. Problem-solving training objectives

16

3. Innovative or change-making training objectives.

He concluded, "the key to finding training objectives is uncoveringorganizational objectives." " It is beyond the scope of this briefvolume to describe in detail the development-by-objectives-and-results approach. It is obvious that if there is to be growth tieremust be asspecification of "growth-toward-what." If it is to over-come functional obsolescence, the new level of competence mustbe specified. Objectives give a focus to all professional develop-ment activities, whether they involve human relations and sensitivityor computer systems. A more precise definition of the organiza-tional or unit objectives and the capabilities of individual personnelto deliver or contribute to the achievement of these objectives isimportant to the design of an MBO/R development activity.

Motivation and Job Enrichment

MBO/R's concern with managerial performance appraisals,position descriptions, and development approaches are part of alarger concern with helping to create a cadre of self-directedemployees. In MBO/R, motivating administrators to greater pro-ductivity relies more on inner or self-directed motivation than onthe fear of appraisal. Motivation, according to MBO/R andTheory Y, is most meaningful when it ccmes from within. MBO/Rcan be interpreted as a leadership style that motivates individualadministrators to higher performance levels by involving them inthe setting of objectives at the unit, division, or organization level.This involvement gives meaning to their specific activities, a chanceto demonstrate their ability to meet important challenges, and a wayto know how well they are doing. Their motivation is based lesson threats, job security, or promise of material rewards than onpersonal satisfaction from a job well done and the recognition thatgoes with it. This style of motivation may be hard to sell to abeliever in the Theory X conception of workers and what turnsthem on.

A more precise title for MBO/R would be "managing leadershippersonnel motivation through specification of position objectivesand results." Obviously this is too long; "leadership-by-objectives-and-results" or "motivation-by-objectives-and-results" may be bet-ter. "The greatest advantage of management by objectives,"according to Drucker, is that it makes it possible for a manager tocontrol his own performance." He stressed the power of self-directed administrators: "Set' control means stronger motivation:a desire to do the best rather than just enough to get by." '5

17

I*

Sensitivity training, that is, coming to understand and appre-ciate human behavior or motivations by knowing in an intimate way

the hopes and fears of persons with whom one works, may beperceived as a dimension or extension of MBO/R. In the processof trying to understand others and how they function in the organiza-tion, the manager acquires a better understanding of himself. Theadministrator who seeks to motivatehers (or to design profes-sional development programs) needs-sic know what values others

hold, what turns them off or on.The dangers and limitations of this motivation strategy were

described by Levinson. He cautioned, "Obviously, no objectiveswill have significant incentive power if they are forced choicesunrelated to a man's underlying dreams, wishes, and personal as-

pirations." " To Levinson an important question is "management bywhose objectives?" Ineptly done, the so-called jointly determinedobjectives could be seen as a facade for manipulating employees.

There must be a genuine feeling of partnership in the goal-setting

process, or the entire framework for manager motivation will beseriously undermined. Motivational strategies may encounter diffi-culties if the manager sees himself, or considers the objectives-setting experience, as only an instrument for reaching a goal. Theideal integration between individual and organizational objectivesrequires an understanding of the individual's needs and then anassessment of how well these needs can be met in the particularorganization. As Levinson put it,

If the two sets of needs do not mesh, then a man has to fighthimself and his organization, in addition to the work whichmust be done and the targets which have been defined.. . . Every management by objectives program and its accom-panying performance appraisals system should be examinedas to the extent to which it (1) expresses the conviction thatpeople are patsies to be driven, urged. and manipulated, and(2) fosters a genuine partnership between men and orga-nization.17Levinson was very direct in his criticism of the motivation

potential in MBO: "MBO as a process is one of the greatest

managerial illusions because it fails to take adequately into account

the deeper emotional components of motivation." 18 He asserted

that MBO is "self-defeating," "serves simply to increase pressure

on the individual," "is not working well despite what some com-panies think about their program," "misses the whole humanpoint," and "is based on a reward-punishment psychology thatserves to intensify the pressure on the individual while really givinghim a very limited choice of objectives." This sweeping indictment

is not shared by all, or the MBO/R movement would have died

18

aborning. But such criticism can be valuable if it alerts us tomisapplications, misinterpretations, and misconceptions within anapproach.

Herzberg 19 observed that "the psychology of motivation istremendously complex and what has been unraveled with any degreeof assurance is small indeed." Efforts to motivate employees byimproving work conditions, raising salaries, or simply reshufflingtasks have nor been enough. Herzberg reviewed some of theapproaches to motivation that result at best in short-term benefits.These included reduced time at work, increased wages and fringebenefits, human relations training, sensitivity training, and employeecounseling. Findings from many of his studies led Herzberg tosuggest that the factors that produce job satisfaction (and motiva-tion) "are separate and distinct from the facto. s that lead to jobdissatisfaction." In other words, job satisfaction is not the oppositeof job dissatisfaction.

Herzberg postulated two basic kinds of human needs: the basicbiological needs derived from our animal nature, and the needsderived from that "unique human characteristic, the ability to achieveand, through achievement, to experience psychological growth."He saw motivation as influenced by "achievement, recognition forachievement, the work itself, responsibility, and growth oradvancement." 20

One large company, Texas Instruments, conducted researchon motivation and reported conclusions that paralleled Herzberg'stheory of motivation." The company identified "four fundamentalrequirements for motivation":

1. A feeling of achievement and opportunity for self-actualization

2. Interpersonal competence

3. The opportunity to work toward meaningful goals

4. The existence of appropriate management systems.'"

The importance of meaningful involvement in significant goal settingwas stressed. Integrating personal with organizational goals wasfound to be the best way to make such goals meaningful to anindividual. "Objectives have to be narrowed to the point thatemployees can relate them to their everyday work." This companyreorganized its managerial approaches to encourage high degreesof individual involvement, considerable use of task forces forproblem-solving and goal-oriented action programs, job enrichment,and the formation of natural work groups. The last two factorsappear to be interrelated, for jobs can be enriched by giving indi-viduals opportunities to plan and control tasks as well as to do them.

19

Some argue that nothing motivates like success. The emphasisshould be on the setting of achievable targets, that is, objectives that

while within the competencies of the individual are still challengingand contribute to the achievement of organization goals. The suc-cess should be based more on developing talent than on applying

external pressure alone.More could be written about the exciting topic of motivation, but

it is beyond the scope of the present volume to delve into greaterdetail. The point is that MBO/R may be perceived as a "motivation-by-objectives" system that seeks to stimulate individual administra-tors to be self-starting and, therefore, more productive personnel.This may be the most important of the many MBO/R interpretationsand may contribute the most to the improvement of educationaladministration.

A word of caution is necessary to place what has been saidabout motivation in context. There is a danger that a complex issuemay be oversimplified. Obviously, not every administrator fits in theTheory Y category (or Theory X, for that matter). But even those whoare creative and work-oriented need a little push in the rightdirection every now and then. An excessive reliance on pressure,however, may be counterproductive.

MBO/R and AccountabilityAccountability, like MBO/R, is a goal-referenced term. Its

meaning remains obscure unless we specify accountability for whatand to whom. MEz0;i1 is one way to make educational accounta-bility more meanlfigful. It may be a part of the design and develop-ment of an accountability system.

People have a right to know for what they will be held ac-countable. Expectations for a position may reveal its essence andprovide the basis for individual performance evaluation. PMBO/R,personnel management -by- objectives -and- results, is an interpreta-tion of MBO/R that seeks to hold managerial personnel accountablefor results rather than simply for the execution of a set of processes.Progress, or the lack of it, is best measured by outcomes achieved.

The issue of joint vs. individual accountability for achievingresults in an organization is a controversial one. It is not alwaysrealistic to hold one oerson accountable for results when his or hereffectiveness depends on what others do. It may be easier to hold ateam of managers, or those within a particular unit, accountable for

some kinds of achievements. Some argue that staff personnelshould be ,field accountable for the effectivenu-s of line officers.on the assumption that staff personnel justify their existence by the

20

contributions made to line officers. But whether joint or individualaccountability prevails, MBO/R focuses on holding personnel ac-countable for results rather than for the execution of processes orthe utilization of inputs.

SUMMARYMBO/R generates a particular kind of organization climate, one

which puts greater stress on outputs and results than on inputs andactivities. MBO/R may be seen as a way to discharge personnelleadership responsibilities. More than appraisal by results or posi-tion description by outcomes is involved. MBO/R may also be away of approaching staff development and staff motivation.

The MBO/R target population in a school system is all admin-istrative personnel in the system: principals, supervisors, directors,business managers, assistant superintendents, associate superin-tendents, and the superintendent himself. MBO/R seeks to deter-mine how much each contributes to the achievement of the resultsof the total system. There is an assumption in MBO/R that peoplewill accomplish more if they have a better notion of what they aresupposed to accomplish.

21

NOTES

I McGregor, Do.iglas. The Hu-man Side of Enterprise. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1960.

Drucker, P. F. The NI c co ofManagement. New York: Harper-Row,1954.

Schleh, E. C. Management byResults. New York: McGraw-Hill,1961.

2 Schleh, op. cit., p. 1.3 Odiorne, George S. "Manage-ment by Objectives." College and

University 10: 13-15; March 1971.4 Heier, W. D. "Implementing an

Appraisal by Results Program." Per-sonnel, November-December 1970. pp.24-32.

Ibid.° Redfern, George S. Based onoral presentations made at various

AASA National Academy for SchoolExecutives Seminars on Staff Evalua-tion.

7 Levinson, H. P. "ManagementBy Whose Objectives?" Harvard Busi-ness Review 48: 125-34; July-August1970.

22

8 Ibid., p. 126.

9 Drucker, op. cit., p. 12.10 Loc. cit.

II Odiorne, George S. Trainingby Objectives. New York: The Mac-millan Co., 1970.

12 Ibid., p. 96.

13 Ibid., p. 106.14 Ibid., p. 129.

15 Ibid., p. 130.

1° Levinson, op. cit.17 Ibid.18 Ibid.

19 Herzberg, Frederick. "OneMore Time: How Do You MotivateEmployees?" Harvard Business Re-view 46: 53-62; January-February 1968.

20 Ibid.

21 Rush, H. M. F. "Texas Instru-ments IncorporatedCase Study 9."A Practical Approach to OrganizationalDevelopment Through MBO. (Editedby A. C. Beck, Jr., and E. D. Hillmar.)Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub-lishing Co., 1972. pp. 18-44.

22 Ibid., p. 21.

CHAPTER 3

MBO/Ras a Comprehensive

ManagementSystem

Administration has an impact on the entire organization, notsimply on its personnel. The question arises, Is MBO/R a limited-range technique designed primarily for personnel management, ora general system with application to many dimensions of adminis-tration? Odiorne is one of many theorists who argue for the morecomprehensive concept. To use his terminology, MBO/R is "asystem of management by objectives" that "goes beyond being aset of rules, a series of procedures or even a set method ofmanaging." 1

Both Drucker and Schleh, as early pioneers of the concept,treated MBO as a management system dedicated to making aproductive enterprise out of human and material resources. Never-theless, during much of the 1950's and the early 1960's, MBO'sapplication in business and industry was limited; it was implementedchiefly by personnel departments interested in establishing a results-oriented appraisal system for managers. There was acquiescencefrom top levels, but complete commitment throughout the organiza-tion to the MBO/R approach was lacking. This may help to explainwhy the approach didn't always work as well as it was supposed to.Leadership from top management, rather than from a single depart-ment alone, was required if MBO/R was to reach its full potentialas a comprehensive system.

The reduction in the number of school systems in the U.S.from almost 200,000 to about 17,000 has made each one morecomplex. Time no longer permits any single school executive todirectly administer or control in detail the many activities of his largeand complex organization. But, as Odiorne pointed out, theexecutive who can control results can manage the largest of orga-

23

nizations.2 MBO/R, with its focus on outcomes, is an approachthat enables the chief school administrator to stay on top of alldimensions of the school system and not simply the personneldepartment. In short, in the systems-oriented concept of MBO/R,the term management means management of the total organization,not just of its personnel.

Evolution of a ConceptHowell 3 identified three stages through which most organiza-

tions pass as they evolve an MBO/R system. The typical evolutionre-creates the historical development of the MBO/R concept. The

first stage is an improved approach to performance appraisal of

managerial personnel. Performance appraisal was the dominantinterpretation of MBO during the 1950's and early 1960's. It repre-sented reaction to the trait-oriented evaluative approach, which"tended to measure a manager on how he approached his job

rather than on the results which he achieved," according to Howell.4

The second stage traces its origins to the mid-1960's, whenthe MBO concept broadened to become "a total approach to man-aging a business, aimed at integrating the objectives of the business

with the objectives of the individual managers in it." 5 In an orga-nization where MBO/R has reached this integration stage, leadershipemerges from among line managers and especially at the chiefexecutive level; it is not confined to a staff executive such as thetop personnel official. As a consequence, the objectives-settingprocess begins in the office of the chief executive, with the participa-tion of managers in charge of operations, rather than just thepersonnel administrator. Objectives at this stage in developmentare prepared as part of the total organizational operation, not outsidethe operations planning budgeting cycle and time period. As aresult of better integration between the objectives of the organizationand those of the individual managers, communications channelsbecome more open, with improved coordination between activitiesand identification of overlapping responsibilities and marginal activi-ties. The organization can be modified to reflect the structure of

objectives.One of the disadvantages of the integration stage of MBO is its

short-term orientation. The focus is primarily on the following year;longer-term commitments are lacking. Historically, this disadvan-tage led to the third stage in the evolution of the concept, about

1970. The focus shifted to the long-range consequences of objec-tives and the longer time framework for action plans affecting boththe organization and the individual administrator. Efforts to under-

24

take such comprehensive long-range planning, focused on the wholeorganization, could well lead to questioning the organization's funda-mental underpinnings.

In general, then, MBO/R is applied first to one dimensionof the organization (performance appraisal); then personal andorganizational goals are integrated in the short range; finally orga-nizational planning becomes strategic or long-range. It is too earlyto tell whether MBO/R history is repeating itself in educationalinstitutions. Most school systems implementing MBO/R start withevaluation of administrative personnel and then go on to otherpersonnel matters such as motivation and continuing professionaldevelopment for administrators. Some, however, relate MBO/Rmore to PPB or general accountability systems, to which we nowturn.

Systems ManagementMBO/R is one of several systems management approaches.

A very brief revic , of the fundamental characteristics of systemsmanagement in general may help us better comprehend the systemsorientation of MBO/R. Systems management

Is goal oriented (stresses the need for objectives).

Emphasizes planning.

Sees change as normal and stresses the need for introducingand managing innovation.

Perceives the organization as a delivery system or input con-version mechanism.

Uses models in problem solving.

Calls for the identification and use of alternatives.

Encourages use of interdisciplinary problem-solving teams.

Employs quantitative analysis techniques.

Emphasizes rational decision-making tools.

Odiorne perceived MBO in systems terms as a system that"begins by defining outputs and applies these (outputs statements)as criteria to judge the quality of activity (behavior) and to governthe release and effectiveness of the inputs." 6 He defined the threekey system terms: inputs ("resources committed to an idea to make ita tangible going concern"), activities ("behaviors of people, design-ing, making, selling, keeping books, engineering, bargaining and thelike which add value . . . to the inputs"), and outputs ("the goods andservices, hardware and software, which come out of the system").7

25

In other words, he perceived MBO as a managerial system under

which --

. . the manager and subordinate sit down at the beginningof each period and talk until agreement upon the job goals isachieved During the period, the subordinate is given widelatitude in choice of method. At the end of the period theactive results are jointly reviewed against agreed goals, andan assessment of the degree of success made s

Odiorne warned of traps, such as becoming "input obsessed,"

an "output fanatic," or, more likely, an "activity obsessed person. "'

General Systems MBO/R Model

An idealized model of the systems-oriented concept of MBO/R

appears in Figures 3-1. The reader is cautioned against inferring that

the general system implies unilateral directives Although not indi-

cated in the general model, involvement of the total staff is

preferred.The general systems MBO/R model starts with the defining

of organizational goals. Next, performance indicators and standards

must be set so that the degree of achievement can be assessed.

Then objectives consistent with the organization goals are set for

each major division or top-echelon executive. Again, performanceindicators and standards must be set to determine the degrees of

achievement.The next step is to assign specific responsibilities (performance

objectives) to units, departments, or individuals, and once more to

set performance standards. Each performance objective is thenassessed to determine its feasibility in view of constraints within the

organization. E.g., is the objective realistic in light of the timeavailable and the manpower that can be allocated to it? Is the state

of technology far enough advanced to achieve the objective? Areenough fiscal resources available to reach the standards stipulated?

The point is that objectives set should be realistic and feasible

if they are to be translated into action, that is, are to influenceoperations. As indicated in Figure 3-1, if any objective is appraised

as being beyond the capabilities of a unit, then there is a return toStep 3 to generate one or more objectives that are equally con-sistent with organizational goals but more realistic and attainable.

If the objectives stipulated for a unit are judged to be feasible,

the next step, shown as Step 8 in Figure 3-1, is determination of alter-native strategies for the attainment of each objective. If analysis

of identified strategies reveals that the objective was not assigned

to the appropriate unit or individual, there is a recycling back to

26

FIGURE 3-1.--GENERAL SYSTEMS MBO/R MODEL

Define organizational goals

I2. Identify performance indicators and standards

(for goals)

43. Set division objectives consistent with goals

4. Identify performance indicators and set standards(for objectives)

45. Define operational objectives for units 4

(or individuals); set performance indicatorsand standards

6. Performance Performance PerformanceObjective Objective Objective Etc.

A B C

17. Assess feasibility of performance x

objective (time, cost)

18. Determine alternative strategies

for performance objective

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

;Analyze feasibility of strategy ,

Select operational strategy

1Refine work plans and tasks

1Design results management subsystem

iMonitor operations

1Evaluate performance and audit results

4RECYCLING

Redefine goals, objectives, performac. z rindicators and standards, assignments, alternat:ves,

strategies, and results management

asCo

a)a)Ua)C....-

27

Step 5 to determine a more appropriate assignment. Note thecontinuing, built-in process of refining objectives and related strate-gies to influence operation and administration of the system.

Each alternative strategy, in turn, is reviewed for its feasibility.A strategy is more than a mere speculation or a descriptive statementof a vague idea. It must make sense in actual operation and mustmee; the standards set for cost-effectiveness. If none of the strategies

are feasible, there is a recycling back to Step 8 to identify still otherreplacement strategies.

If analysis indicates that more than one strategy is feasible,

then the decision maker uses his or her judgment to select one asthe operational approach, as shown in Step 10. The selected strategyis then translated into a work plan and related work tasks, to direct

the utilization of resources. Next, a results management systemmust be designed, to ensure that the efforts and resources of the

organization are locked onto a meaningful objective. Part of thatresults management dimension is a monitoring system that includes

supervision, checkpoints, reporting, etc., to supply decision makerswith information on progress toward objectives. At the end of astated period of time there is a more complete performance evalua-

tion and an auditing of results.Rational approaches to administration may include a built-in,

self-correcting mechanism. A high degree of effectiveness is notlikely to be achieved the first time around, that is, immediately uponcompletion of the initial cycle. Step 15 is the beginning of the re-cycling process. On a periodic basis there is a redefinition of

objectives, performance indicators and standards, assignments,strategies, etc. Recycling is a means of refining the MBO/R system--

of management.The general systems model of MBO/R may be applied to all

types of organizations, including education. It is a disciplined,rational, and outcomes-oriented approach to administration. An

abbreviated form of the general model, starting with unit assign-ments, is presented in Figure 3-2. It indicates the major operationalphases for MBO/R that are consistent with the general model.

More will be said about work plans, work tasks, and results

management in Chapters 5 and 6. The term results management is

synonymous with managing for results. Suffice it to say at this point

that MBO/R is more than an exercise in writing statements of objec-

tives. One of the biggest challenges of this approach to administra-

tion is the translation of objectives into strategies, then into work

tasks, and then into results management techniques.28

FIGURE 3-2.MAJOR OPERATIONAL PHASES FOR MBO/R

Phase 1Determine unit responsibilities, performance indicators, andstandards consistent with organizational and division ob-jectives.

1Phase 2Set and assess feasibility of each operational objective for

the unit.

Phase 3Generate and select (feasible) strategy for each operationalobjective.

Phase 4Formulate work plan and related work tasks to implement thestrategy for each operational objective.

1Phase 5Design and implement a results management approach in-

cluding a monitoring system to ensure achievement of eachoperation.

iPhase 6Execute outcomes and performance appraisal against pre-

determined unit objective and strategies (to be completed atthe end of a stated period).

1Phase 7Recycle and refine MBO/R practices.

Planning and ControllingMBO/R as a systems approach may be applied to any and all

dimensions of administration. One can speak in terms of planning-by - objectives- and results, supervising by- objectives - and results,budgeting-by-objectives-and-results, as well as personnel-manage-ment-by-objectives-and-results. What makes MBO/R more than just"a logical extension of the normal management functions of planningand control," according to Wikstrom, is "the rigor with which theplanning and control is carried out." '0 MBO/R gives direction toplanning by Pmphasizing end results rather than activity per se, that

29

is, by setting objectives for operational activity. Executives like

MBO, according to Wikstrom, because "once managers get the

hang of it, they can plan far better than anyone believed possible

before. . . ." "There is a very close relationship between planning and ob-

jectives, whether objectives are viewed as the end product of the

planning process or as a mechanism that gives direction to planning

efforts. There are other functions for both planning and objectives.

MBO /R represents a rebirth of well established ideas on the im-

portance of objectives in management in general.

Controlling, in the sense of appraising programs at periodic

intervals to permit adjustments that are necessary to keep the

organization moving toward objectives, is an important part of the

managing-for-results strategy of MBO/R. When the future state

desired is expressed in written objectives, it is eas;er to spot diffi-

culties before the critical or disruptive stage is reached. Drucker

emphasized, however, that the ultimate to be sought in controlling is

self-control. To achieve it, managers at the unit level need a

reference point to help them assess where they stand in relation to

organizational objectives. Drucker felt that "the greatest advantage

of management by objectives is perhaps that it makes it possible

for a manager to control his own performance." 12 He saw control

as an ambiguous word; it could mean either "ability to direct

oneself and one's work" or "domination of one person by another." 13

The word has the first meaning, never the second, in MBO/R.

Planning and controlling by objectives make it feasible for each

unit and individual, rather than positions and persons at top

echelons alone, to participate in the total sweep of work. This is real

job enrichment, for it gives individuals and units a feeling of con-

trolling their own destinies and contributing to the destiny of the

organization rather than simply implementing what someone else

plans or being "controlled" by top-echelon personnel. "Manage-

ment by objectives tells a manager what he ought to do." 14

MBO/Fi is team oriented, stressing the importance of an effec-

tive management team. As Drucker pointed out,

Each manager, from the "big boss" down to the productionforeman or the chief clerk, needs clearly spelled-out objectives.These objectives should lay out what performance the man's

own managerial unit is supposed to produce. They should lay

out what contribution he and his unit are expected to make to

help other units to obtain their objectives. Finally, they should

spell out what contribution the manager can expect from other

units to the obtainment of his own objectives. Right from the

start, in other words, emphasis should be on teamwork and

team results.1530

PPBS and MBO/RWhat exactly is the relationship between management-by-

objectives-and-results and program budgeting? The relationshipis tenuous at best if MBO/R is interpreted to be appraisal-by-results,motivation-by-objectives, or any other primarily personnel-orientedapproach. PPBS (a term used interchangeably with programbudgeting) has relatively little to offer to personnel management.But where the systems-oriented interpretation of MBO/R prevails,PPBS and MBO/R come closer together. The steps evident in thegeneral systems MBO/R model in Figure 3-1 have a familiar ring toanyone acquainted with the operational dimensions of PPBS.

Program budgeting may be interpreted to be budgeting-by-objectives, that is, a system of classifying anticipated expendituresaround a set of objectives, or related programs for the achievementof objectives. This is clearly one dimension, but it is not all that isinvolved in PPBS. The program budget document presents receiptand expenditure data in a programmatic format. PPBS can bedefined as a resource allocation decision system'; in which thefunctions are planning, programming, budgeting, analyzing, de-ciding, evaluating, and recycling (PPBADERS).

PPBS and MBO/R both start with and stress the importance ofobjectives. Both call for objectives of a given quality. But thefiscal dimension (budgeting), prominent in PPBS, is much less soin the general MBO/R model. Likewise, cost-effectiveness analysis,a significant aspect of the program budgeting process, is less

crucial to the successful operation of MBO/R. Although the argu-ment goes on, the conclusion seems clear: there is one commonconcern in PPBS and MBO/R (identification and utilization of objec-tives), but there are many differences as well. The complex decisionsystem known as PPBS contains many processes that are not partof, or at least not crucial to, the success of MBO/R, and vice versa.Each system is an outcomes-oriented management approach, butthe end products of the two are different. In PPBS, the end productis a decision about how resources are to be allocated and used. InMBO/R the end product can be many things: appraisal of theproductivity of staff members, more effective motivation of managers,a generalized management planning and control system. It can beargued that operating in the MBO/R mode facilitates the operationof PPBS. Perhaps, then, MBO/R really is a subset of PPBS, as somepeople say. But it is probably best to vio,,v the two systems ascomplementary and compatible ones that can and should beintermixed to achieve a more effective, more productive organization.

31

SUMMARYMBO/R need not be confined to the activities traditionally asso-

ciated with personnel management. It has application to all adminis-trative concerns for the entire organization. This broader view isthe systems-oriented interpretation of MBO/R. Odiorne put it wellwhen he described MBO as a "direct attempt to build into manage-ment systems an unremitting attention to purpose." 17 In fact, theearly pioneers of MBO considered it a general system of manage-ment; only later was its application confined to personneldepartments.

Howell indicated that MBO began as a performance appraisaltechnique. In Stage 2, during the mid-1960's, the focus shifted tointegration of the objectives of the organization with those of indi-vidual managers. In Stage 3 MBO became a long-range planningsystem. Howell argued that most organizations seeking to implementMBO will repeat these, stages of evolution.

In syctems terms, "MBO is a system which begins by the findingof outputs and applies these (output statements) as criteria to judgethe quality of activity (behavior) and to govern the release andeffectiveness of the inputs." 18 Most organizations are too largeand complex for a single individual to directly influence resultsthrough individual efforts alone. But if the executive can controloutputs he may develop the capability to manage even the largestof organizations. In this sense the word management in MBO/Rmeans management of the total organization, not just of itspersonnel.

The general systems MBO/R model starts with a definition oforgmlizational goals and a setting of performance indicators andstandards and continues to filter downward to the setting of opera-tional objectives for each unit and person. The operational objec-tives are assessed to determine their feasibility. For each objectivethere must be a set of alternative strategies for its attainment. Theoperational strategy is then translated into work plans and tasks.Managing for results usually includes a monitoring subsystem tocheck progress toward achievement of objectives. At the end of astated period, there is further control of results through performanceevaluation and auditing of results. Finally, recycling leads to furtherrefinement of MBO/R.

MBO/R can be subdivided further into such components asplanning-by-objectives-and-results, supervision-by-objectives-and-results, and budgeting-by-objectives-and-results, as well as thepreviously described personnel-management-by-objectives-and-results. Planning may be seen as a process given direction through32

stipulation of objectives or a process that produces a statement ofobjectives. Some argue that planning may be improved throughMBO. The close relationship between planning and objectives wasobserved many years before MBO/R placed renewed emphasisupon it.

The greatest contribution of MBO, according to Drucker, maybe that it gives the manager a means to direct his own work andenergies. It can lead to self-control. Controlling is part of the resultsmanagement phase of MBO/Ii. Controlling in this sense is not to beinterpreted as domination of one person by another.

PPBS and MBO/R both start with and place stress on thesetting of objectives. There is considerable controversy aboutwhether MBO/R (as a general systems approach) and PPBS arethe same thing, or whether one is a subset of the other. PPBSattaches more importance to fiscal dimensions and cost-effective-ness analysis than does MBO/R. By the same token, MBO/R callsfor certain operations that are of less importance to PPBS. Opera-tion in the MBO/R mode can facilitate operation in the PPBS mode.

For the purposes of this volume MBO/R and PPBS will beviewed as complementary and compatible outcomes-oriented man-agement systems. PPBS is a resource allocation decision system;MBO/R stresses other outcomes.

33

NOTES

1 Odiorne, G. S. Managementby Objectives. New York: Pitman,1965. p. 54.

2 "Management byObjectives." College and UniversityJournal 10: 13-15; March 1971.

3 Howell, R. A. "A Fresh Lookat Management by Objectives." Busi-ness Horizons, Fall 1967. pp. 51-58.

4 Ibid.5 Ibid.0 Odiorne, G. S. "Management

by Objectives." College and Univer-sity Journal 10: 13-15; March 1971.

7 Ibid.8 Ibid.9 Ibid.10 Wikstrom, Walter S. "Man-

agement by Objectives Appraised."

34

A Practical Approach to OrganizationDevelopment Through MBO. (Editedby A. C. Beck, Jr., and E. D. Hillmar.)Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub-lishing Co., 1972. pp. 210-11.

11 Ibid., p. 212.12 Drucker, P. F. The Practice ol

Management. New York: Harper-Row,1954. p. 138.

13 Ibid.14 ibid., p. 131.15 Ibid., p. 126.18 Knezevich, Stephen P. Pro-

gram Budgeting (PPBS), A ResourceAllocation Decision System for Edu-cation. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchanPublishing Co., 1973.

17 Odiorne, op. cit.18 Ibid.

CHAPTER 4

Generatingand Working

with Objectives

"Know thyself," Socrates admonished. "Know thyself andthine organization better by knowing the objectives of both," theproponents of MBO/R urge. Objectives are the base upon which theentire MBO/R system is built. You never really know an organizationor what it might do until you know its objectives. The all-pervasiveimpact of objectives was pointed out by Drucker: "Objectives areneeded in every area where performance and results directly andvitally affect the survival and prosperity of the business. "'

MBO/R is not an abstruse management system. On the con-trary, it rests on the rather simple idea of determining where youwant to go before you start out on a venture, MBO/R is not the firstmanagement sysf,_rn to stress the importa',ce of specifying out-comes before allocating and spending resources. Practitioners andtheorists in organizational management disagree on many things,but they have long con "urred on the importance of knowing yourobjectives and those of your organization. They agree that everysoundly administered enterprise must begin with an identificationand enunciation of objectives. Some theorists even argue that theorganization exists for the attainment of objectivesthat is, that anorganization is by definition a goal-seeking mechanism.

Planning ahead so as to face and cope with future demandsis one of the very important functions of an executive. This kind ofplanning is facilitated by clearly defined goals. The importance ofMBO/R is that it can make management by objectives and fordesired results a reality.

It is crucial to recognize that MBO/R does not translate into"management-by-any-kind-of-objectives-and-resultc." Poorly statedobjectives formulated through questionable procedures may

35

J

hamper, if not doom, operations of the system. Drucker very earlycondemned the search for "the one right objective," calling it"unproductive as the quest for the philosopher's stone" and "certainto do harm and misdirect." 2 On the other hand, Schleh warned,having too many objectives tends to "take the drive out of anobjectives program." He offered the guideline that "no positionshould have more than .. . five objectives." 3

But It is easier to talk about objectives than it is to design enc.operate a managerial system ased on the generation of meaningfuland functional ones. While most people feel they know what anobjective is and agree that it is a fairly simple concept, they considerthe setting, or generating, of objectives a time-consuming andalmost painful chore. One sure way to embarrass the averageschool administrator is to ask, "What are your objectives?" If ableto respond at all, he will probably come up with a statement ofeducational outcomes that would fail to meet the tests of adequacydemanded by MBO/R. From the time management first emergedas a field of scientific study, theorists have noted that most admin-istrators tend to be vague about what they hope to accomplish,where they want their organization to go, and why.

Why is something as simple as an objective so difficult togenerate and put into practice? It is necessary to take a closer anddeeper look at the concept.

A Hierarchy for Outcome Statements

We need first to specify what we mean by such terms asmission, goal, and objective. Outcome statement will be used as thebase or universal term for a statement of intent, direction, or antici-pated results. Missions, goals, and objectives are viewed as indi-cators of outcomes and are subsets of that universal term. In allcases an outcome statement describes a future state or anticipatedevent. To illustrate, "What are your objectives?" may be translatedas "What anticipated results or future state of affairs do you havein mind?"

A mission statement is defined as an expression of generalintent, usually in the form of a policy; it applies to the system as awhole over a long time period. It may reflect the hopes, values, andaspirations of the organization and, therefore, be similar to whatothers call broad aims or general purpose statements. A mission mayalso be described as a broad generalization or a global concernthat justifies the coro,nued existence of an organization and gives ita basic orientation.36

A goal statement is one step more precise than a mission state-ment. Many goal statements may come out of one mission declara-tion. Each describes a desired terminal point to be reached sometimein the future to fulfill the mission, and general directions to pursuethe mission. A goal statement, likewise, remains too broad to beuseful in identifying specific operational activities. A goal is seen bysome as a "broad objective." It must be broken down further if itsdeclarations of outcomes are to serve as guides to action.

An objective is an outcome statement that is consistent withand grows out of a related goal statement. It is a more specificexpression of a position, behavior, process, or product to beachieved by a major operational division of an organization over ashorter time period. It is a desired outcome that is capable of beingmeasured with specificity.

Performance objectives are more sharply focused or morespecific objective statements. Usually they describe outcomes thatare measurable and achievable during a relatively short time period.They are likely to be set primarily for categories, departments, orunits within an organization or for specific administrators.

Targeted performance objectives are even more refined andspecific. They are outcome statements focused on a stated product,process, or population within the organization.

Table 4-1 presents an illustrative school administration hier-archy to show where each level of outcome statement is generated.Here the responsibility for mission statements is delegated to thepeople, acting through their representatives, the local board ofeducation. The setting of goals is assigned to the chief schoolexecutive and his administrative team. Objectives, in turn, aregenerated by associate and assistant superintendents for eachmajor school division. School principals and directors of schoolsupport services have responsibility for identifying the performanceobjectives for their units; members of the administrative teams atthese levels are also involved. Finally, the targeted performanceobjectives are produced by teachers and department heads inschool buildings or operational personnel in support departments.

Another look at the breakdown of work tasks in setting out-come statements is presented in Figure 4-1. It should be apparentthat the number of outcome statements increases as one movesfrom general to specific description of anticipated results, or fromhigher to lower administrative levels. In the illustration, a singlemission statement has three goals. Each goal has three objectives.Each objective yields three performance objectives, each of which inturn has three targeted performance objectives. (There is no magicin the number three; there could be one, five, or whatever.)

37

TABLE 4-1.HIERARCHY OF OUTCOME STATEMENTS

Type Responsibility Level

1. Missions set by The people and the board ofeducation

2. Goals set by The chief school executive andihis team

3. Objectives set by Associate and assistant super-

/

intendents (administrators ofeach major division)

4. Performance Objectives set by Principals and directors, andtheir administrative teams (ad-ministrators at each unit orbuilding level)

5. Targeted Performance set by Other professional personnelObjectives department heads, teachers,

etc.

The reader is cautioned that not all writers differentiate outcome

descriptors on the same basis. For example, some consider agoal to be a measurable object;ve. To avoid the semantic pitfalls,

it is important to recognize the implicit or explicit definition the

writer is using.

Functions of Outcome StatementsAn outcome statement may serve a variety of functions, such

as the following:

1. Rhetoric. An outcome statement's value may lie chiefly in itspsychological impact on others who are served by the orga-nization, work within it, or relate to it in some way. Mission and

goal statements are usually rhetorical, because they are broad

and vague declarations of intent. "I promise to do my verybest" and "Our goal is to be the best possible school system

in the United States," for example, are rhetoricql outcome

38

FIGURE 4-1.THE OUTCOMES TREE

Mission I

Level IBoard andI I

Goal Goal Goal Chief ExecutiveA B C Level

Level II.,Central OfficeLevel

Level IllSchool orOther UnitLevel

Level IVClassroom orOther OperationalLevel

IObj.B1

Obj.B2

I

Obj.B3

I

Perf.Obj.B2a

Perf.Obj.B2b

1

Perf.Obj.B2c

I

TPO'B2b1

TPO*B2b2

TPO'B2b3

' TPO = Targeted Performance Objective

statements. What is called an "objective" may actually be arhetorical credo whose impact is chiefly psychological ("Webelieve that every individual is important and, therefore, willwork toward greater individualization in our schools"). Suchstatements are difficult to translate into operations. Their valueis derived from their impact on those not immediately con-cerned with operational problems.

2. Direction. An outcome statement may be used to orient theorganization, that is, to suggest how efforts and resourcesshould be pointed.

3. Production. An outcome statement may be used to identifywork tasks, that is, actions or activities that are consistent withachievement. The statement may suggest a way of clustering

39

resources as well as knowing what to monitor. "Objectives"in this sense may also facilitate the execution of necessaryoperations to keep the organization on target. They couldinclude the determination of appropriate checkpoints duringthe course of operation.

4. Evaluation. An outcome statement may be used as a standardor base for appraisal of efforts and results. It is part of the con-trolling dimension of management: not controlling of operation,but controlling of results at the end of the stated period. It mayalso provide data for the determination of future courses ofaction.

5. Motivation. An outcome statement may be used to stimulate orchallenge individuals or groups to achieve at a given level byspecifying expectations. The assumption is that a person whoknows what is expected of him is more likely to strive for thedesired outcome or derive enjoyment from its achievement.Obviously, the objective must be within the realm of feasibilityfor the individual or it will lose much of its motivational force.As was noted in Chapter 2, motivation is given particular stressin one interpretation of MBO/R.

6. Unification. An outcome statement may be used as a basis forcoordinating the efforts of many and providing a focus for con-tributing groups. In this sense, an objective may be a pointaround which to rally departments with diverse professionalinterests.

7. Analysis. An outcome statement may be used to make com-parisons, to ascertain the impact of objectives as constraints orcontrols in a process.

Some degree of overlap should be evident, as in functions 4and 7. The point is that objective statements may serve a variety offunctions. As far as MBO/R is concerned, the rhetorical functionhas relatively little to contribute. The primary functions of objectivesin MBO/R are to give direction, to facilitate operations (the produc-tion function), to motivate personnel, and to provide the basis forsubsequent evaluation. All of this is a way of saying that a statementof objectives is a means to more prudent management of complexorganizations. Once again, it will be effective only if it is generated ina particular way and articulated in a precise manner.

Types of ObjectivesThere is no universal objective that is satisfactory for all levels

of operation within a complex organization. Objectives for admin-40

istrators at different levels differ greatly in specificity. The specificityrightly demanded at the classroom level would drown executivesat the systemwide level in a flood of detail and reports.

Objectives also differ in focus. Some focus on a product,others on the process used in the production of outputs. Processobjectives may also be seen as support objectives. They are com-mon in education.

Outcome statements may be further classified on the basis ofthe time period in which they are expected to be achieved: immediate("right now"), short-range (a single fiscal period), intermediate-range, long-range (three to five years), and very long-range (10 ormore years). Objectives may cover a period up to and including theintermediate time range. Goals and missions cover the intermediateto the very long range.

Objectives for educational institutions may also be divided intothose serving the instructional and those serving the managerial(administrative) dimensions. A rather extensive body of literaturehas arisen, independent of MBO/R, on the writing and use ofinstructional objectives. A large battery of performance or be-havioral objectives has been developed. A special instructionalobjective exchange (I0X) enables school systems to benefit fromthe work of others in the generation of performance objectives fwinstruction in a given subject field. The well-known taxonomies ofeducational objectives stimulated by the American EducationalResearch Association likewise focus on instructional outcomes.

Much less has been written on the setting and use of per-formance or behavioral objectives for school management. The"Seven Cardinal Principles," "Objectives of Education in an Ameri-can Democracy," and "Ten Imperative Needs" are much too broadand vague to serve anything but rhetorical functions. The MBO/Rsystem demands more precise statements of performance objectivesfor administrators. Previous declarations of general educationalintent may serve a useful function in conveying an image but dorelatively little to influence the dynamics of instruction and admin-istration in educational institutions. It is hoped that the past decade'srevolution in educational objectives writing will bring a much neededchange.

Behavioral or performance objectives, as applied to learning,must be expressed in terms of behavior to be exhibited by the learneror evidence of attainment of a measured level of performance.Peter Pipe 5 defined a behavioral objective as follows:

1. It describes the observable action that is to be evidence ofcompetence.

41

2. When necessary it describes the conditions under which theaction is to be performed.

3. When necessary it describes criteria by which to judge ac-ceptable performance.

Traditionally, statements of instructional objectives began with suchphrases as "to understand," "to know," and "to learn." These termsare much too vague to permit observation or measurement of results.

Experts in writing objectives are unanimous in recommending thatwords open to many interpretations be abandoned. They favorbeginning behavioral objectives with more specific terms ("toidentify," "to construct," "to demonstrate," "to order").

Individuals seeking to manage school systems in the MBO/Rmode need to be able to differentiate between performance objec-tives and those not written in this format. They must be able toprepare meaningful performance objectives for themselves or their

unit.

Assessment Criteria

MBO/R as an effective system of management depends uponthe quaiity of the objectives generated. The best objectives are-

1. Understandable. (Objectives should be written in clear, pre-cise, unambiguous language. There should be no confusionor misunderstanding among superiors and subordinates aboutwhat is meant and what should be done. Words chosen shouldfacilitate rather than obfuscate meaning and should not beopen to more than one interpretation. Terms with unclearantecedents should be avoided.)

2. Performance-Oriented. (Each objective should indicate thedesired level of performance, behavior, or other end productto be achieved. It should suggest what a person or divisionwill be able to do when the objective is satisfied at some futurepoint in time.)

3. Measurable. (The outcome to be achieved should be so ex-pressed as to facilitate assessment. The assumption in MBO/Ris that if an outcome can't be measured, the degree of achieve-ment may never be known. Thus, if time is a factor, the preciseperiod should be stipulated in hours, weeks, months, or years.If the magnitude of production is a factor, the actual numbershould be indicated. The means and units of measure shouldbe stipulated beforehand as well.)

42

4. Challenging. (An objective should never describe what isalready being achieved by an administrator. Rather it shouldbe a means of raising his sights, of motivating him to move onto new levels of accomplishment. An objective that has alreadybeen met no longer motivates.)

5. Realistic and achievable. (There is a difference between achallenge and an impossible demand. The latter generatesfrustration rather than motivation. An objective should beachievable in terms of resources, constraints, the presently de-veloped technology, and the capabilities of the individual orteam.)

6. Significant. (The outcome statement should define a conditionthat is important to the organization, i.e., contributes to achieve-ment of the significant concerns assigned it by society. Onepair of writers observed that "being candid about objectivesmay be embarrassing or offensive and . . . may . . . alert op-ponents and give them something specific to attack." 6 How-ever, unless an objective expresses the fundamental anddesired concerns of an organization it has little value.)

7, Accurate. (The stated objectives should reflect the true intentof the organization. They should not be a flowery mask thatdisguises the organization's real intentions.)

8. Brief. (Objectives should be expressed in as few words aspossible without sacrificing understandability.)

Other criteria for effective objectives can be found in the literature.Schools are multipurpose institutions. This is one reason why

MBO/R is harder to implement in education than in industry, wherepurposes are more limited in number and range. It would be wrongto assume that all objectives are homogeneous, of equal value, andnever in conflict. Where many objectives are pursued, there is adistinct possibility that not all may be satisfied with the resourcesat hand. Trade-offs, bargaining, and other devices may be used toobtain a statement of priorities. As Drucker noted, in addition tobalancing the immediate and the long range future, managementalso has to balance objectives." 7

General Matthew B. Ridgway once wrote,

There come times when the cost of seeking to obtain anobjective promises to exceed by far any value which couldaccrue from its attainment. At that point wisdom dictatesabandonment of pursuit of that objective, whether it be a gov-ernment's political, or an individual's personal, objective.8

Once again the judgment of the administrator comes into play inassessing the value of objectives and deciding whether a shift in

43

r

-11=11,-

priorities is necessary. Objectives are not eternal verities. Revision

rather than rigidity is the rule. The need for continual revision was

implied in our discussion of the recycling dimension of MBO/R anddeserves repeating at this point. It is unrealistic to believe that aperfect set of objectives will be created at any one point in time

Refinement is inevitable.Managers must be aware of the dangers of goal displacement.

There is a tendency to select the objectives that are easiest toexecute or to measure, to sacrifice quality to ease of quantification.

Judgment will have to be exercised in the selection, ranking, and

changing of objectives to be pursued at each level of the organiza-

tion's operation.

Generation of ObjectivesAccording to one set of writers,

One purpose of MBO is to facilitate the derivation of specificfrom general objectives, seeing to it that objectives at all levelsin the organization are meaningfully located structurally andlinked to each other.9

Another purpose is to integrate the objectives of the individual and

the organization. Frequent reference has been made to the impor-

tance of having subordinates participate in the determination ofobjectives. The manner in which objectives are generated is of no

less importance to MBO/R than their quality. MBO/R demands that

administrators at all levels be able to accept the set of objectives,

identify with them, and relate what they do on an everyday basisto them. In this sense, MBO/R may be seen as one form of par-ticipative management or, to use the term more popular in education,

one form of democratic school administration.MBO/R will be less effective where there is unilateral deter-

mination of organizational objectives, that is, where a directive from

the top about what should be done replaces involvement of the staff

in the setting of goals. Objectives may originate at any point in theorganizational structure. Making the system work involves reducing

the probability of goal conflict and increasing the possibility ofshared or common goals. Sharing is important if objectives are to

be a unifying element in the administration of education.One test of the leadership capabilities of the administrator is

whether he can stimulate the development of significant and

measurable objectives through involvement of his subordinates. The

need to generate statements of objectives for school systems hasbeen stressed in many calls to actic:., but these have usually met

with an unenthusiastic response from school administrators ("Not

44

again!"). Where the functions of objectives are obscure, where therelationship between objectives and mode of operation is not clear,,and where the impact on individual behavior is not readily apparent,generating objectives naturally appears to be an exercise in futilityFrom the positive side, when administrators at all levels have ac-quired the skills needed to prepare meaningful, measurable, chal-lenging, and performance-based objectives, and when they havebeen convinced that the setting of objectives opens the door to anew style of management, their resistance may give way toenthusiasm.

Obviously, it takes time to produce high-quality objectives.Years could be spent on the task. But recycling and the possibilityof subsequent refinement permit establishing a time limit (three tosix months at most) for the generation of a statement of outcomes,so that operations in the MBO/R mode may begin.

The problems, pressures, and aspirations approach can helpkeep objective setters from feeling overwhelmed by the magnitudeof their task. It is not imperative that all objectives be identified atany one time. A starting point may be problems recognized byteachers, students, and administrators; or the pressures felt from thecommunity, legislature, or federai agencies. Then attention can beturned to aspirations of the professional staff and people of thecommunity. The list of problems, pressures, and aspirations shouldbe screened to identify those of greatest and most common concern.The trick in getting started is to translate only the highest priorityconcerns into goals.

Next, to translate each goal into measurable objectives it isnecessary to prepare the "base case." The base case is a quantita-tive and descriptive summary of what exists, what conditionsprevail, To illustrate, one community pressure felt in the schools isto reduce the number of dropouts. The base case would yield dataon the percentage of secondary school students dropping out duringpast years in the school district, the reasons, and the possible futuretrends. The next step is to specify what new performance levelsmay be attainable and by what target date. If the dropout rate is25 percent, is it realistic to expect to reduce this to 10 percentwithin five years? Or, in view of the pressures, the resources avail-able, and the state of the art, is it more realistic to try to reduce thedropout rate to 15 percent within five years? This is a judgmentdecision made jointly by the professional staff, perhaps with theinvolvement of some community representatives. The third stepin the process is to assess what resources and staff capabilities areavailable to satisfy the specified new performance level. The per-formance objective is derived from an expression of a concern, the

45

gathering of pertinent facts called the base case, and the judgmentsof informed persons as to what can realistically be done within

certain constraints.The pertinent issues of judgment are,

How important is it to satisfy an objective?

Who ultimately determines the value or worth of an objective?

What procedures shall be used to assess the worth of an objec-tive (consensus, unilateral action, majority vote)?

Setting objectives in the desired manner is a crucial beginningstep in MBO/ii. But a statement of objectives is not an end initself. How to use objectives in managing for results is the subject

of the next chapte-.

SUMMARYPeople generally feel that they know what an objective is and

that it is a fairly simple concept. But most administrators would behard pressed to answer the question, "What are your objectives?"The seeming simplicity of objectives is deceiving. A closer anddeeper analysis is necessary to better understand objectives asthe base upon which MBO/R is built. An MBO/R system is onlyas good as the objectives it rests on and the manner in which they

were generated.MBO/R is not the first management system to call for specifica-

tion of outcomes. For the purposes of this publication, the word

outcomes is a general one meaning anticipated results Mission,

goal objective, performance objective, and targeted performanceobjective are subsets of this general term. A mission (sometimescalled a broad aim or general purpose) is the broadest statementof intent. Goal statements are derived from it and give a morespecific, bit: still rather genera!, direction. Objectives, in turn, arederived from goals and begin to specify more precisely the accom-plishments demanded. Performance objectives emphasize opera-tions, behavior, and products; they should be expressed in

measurable terms. Targeted performance objectives focus on agiven population, product, or process.

Mission statements for school systems are usually producedby boards of education. Goals are set by the chief school executiveand his administrative team. Associate and assistant superin-tendents for major divisions focus on objectives. Principals anddirectors have responsibilities for performance objectives. Targetedperformance objectives are prepared by other operational personnel.The "outcomes tree" shows a I 'olife ration in numbers as one movesfrom general to more specific. iescriptions of anticipated results.46

Outcome statements can perform many functions. For thepurposes of MBO/R they help most in setting direction, suggestingoperations, motivating individuals and groups, and facilitatingevaluation. Some outcome statements are an exercise in rhetoricand seek to convey an image or to impress others. these have lessimportance in MBO/R.

Educational objectives may be classified by time frame (short-range vs. long-range), by focus (product- vs. process-oriented), andby target (instruction vs. administration). Relatively little has beenwritten about performance objectives for administration, in contrastto fv,e4C6Iumes on curriculum and instruction.

Thip quality of objectives is important in MBO/R and may beassessed according to many criteria. To cite a few, objectives shouldbe written in terms that are understandable, performance-based,measurable, challenging, realistic, significant, accurate, and brief.In multipurpose institutions it is important that objectives be bal-anced. It is unrealistic to expect outcomes statements to be ho-mogeneous and never in conflict.

The manner in which objectives are generated is almost ascrucial as their quality. The involvement of others who will beaffected by the objectives is important. In this sense MBO/R maybe looked upon as a system of participative management or demo-cratic school administration. The key to effective operation may bethe feeling of employees that they can accept and identify with theobjectives of the organization and relate their everyday work tasksto them.

-the valuing of objectives calls for judgment. Values maychange and with them the willingness to incur the costs in resourcesand sacrifice necessary to fulfill an objective. Experience may callfor the revision if not aoandonment of an objective. Revis:on ofobjectives through recycling should be an ongoing activity.

The call to prepare a statement of objectives for an orga-nization is seldom greeted with enthusiasm. Resistance may bereduced by indicating how the objectives are to be used and howthey may affect everyday operation3. A problems, pressures, andaspirations approach is recommended for the generation of objec-tives. It is based on the assumption that it is not imperative toidentify all objectives at once. The trick is to focus on those con-sidered to be most important. For each objective, establishing thebase case facilitates the specification of desired performance levels.The last step is to assess the availability of resources and personnelto meet the objectives.

The setting of objectives in a desired manner is only thebeginning point of MBO/R.

47

NOTES

I Drucker, P. F. The Practiceof Management. New York: Harper-Row, 1954. p. 63.

2 Ibid., p. 62.3 Schleh, E. C. Management by

Results. New York: McGraw-Hill BookCo., 1961. p. 22.

4 Knezevich, S. J. ProgramBudgeting (PPBS), A Resource Alloca-tion Decision System for Education.Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan Publish-ing Co., 1973. Chapter 4.

5 Pipe, Peter. "Putting the Be-havioral Objective To Work: SomeDefinitions." Mimeographed (AASA

48

National Academy for School Execu-tives Clinic, 1970).

6 Merewitz, L., and Sosnick, S. H.The Budget's New Clothes. Chicago,III.: Markham Publishing Co., 1971.p. 56.

Drucker, op. cit., p. 86.8 Ridgway, Matthew B. "Leader-

ship." The New York Times, Novem-ber 14, 1972. p. 45.

9 Tosi, H. L.; Rizzo, J. R.; andCarroll, S. J. "Setting Goals and Man-agement by Objectives." CaliforniaManagement Review 12: 78; Summer1970.

CHAPTER 5

Managing forResults and Operations

in the MBO/RMode

Objectives focus on a desired state or condition to be reachedat some future point in time. They are not self-executing. A com-mitment in writing to attain a certain level of accomplishment withincertain constraints is the foundation of the MBO/R system, but muchmore is involved in managing with objectives.

Objectives help to explain why an institution pursues specificactivities and how it allocates its resources. Managerial talents andstructures are needed to translate outcome stater.,--, s into relevantoperations. Managing for results is concerned will. the "how to,""with what," and "when."

Programming and the Work Plan

Objectives setting is followed by programming--specifying theviable alternative strategies for reaching each objective, analyzingeach alternative in terms of its costs and effectiveness, and finallyselecting the most prudent or appropriate one. A strategy is a planof action, that is, a contemplated course of processes to follow inorder to meet the objective. It becomes an operational strategywhen translated into work plans and work tasks. Work tasks specifyadministrator roles and responsibilities for each step of the waytoward the objective.

Typically in MBO/R, the superior and subordinate administra-tors jointly determine feasible objectives to be satisfied by thesubordinate. The subordinate administrator has the added respon-sibility of identifying alternative strategies, analyzing each, selectingthe appropriate one, and translating it into more detailed work plansand work tasks for operational personnel within his or her unit.

49

Thus the "why," as expressed in an objective, involves both levelsof administrators, but the "how" rests primarily with the subordinateadministrator and personnel closer to operational levels. To repeat,the focus of administrators at every level should be on the resultsof their work, rather than on simply executing some kind of activityor "keeping busy."

The work plan sequences and schedules events to producethe desired outcomes, establishing checkpoints along the way byspelling out when each step is supposed to be completed. It maybe based on network analysis models such as PERT or lesssophisticated time lines for major events. The work plan spells outthe people involved, differentiates among them in terms of roles andresponsibilities, establishes the timing of their efforts, and indicatesthe resources required. The strategy for selecting, assigning, train-ing, motivating, and appraising performance is also part of thecomprehensive work plan. The closer one comes to where the workis actually performed, the more important it is to develop a detailedspecification of work tasks related to the MBO/R plan of action.

Allocating Resources for the Work PlanEach objective that is "programmed" must have resources

allocated to it. The more dynamic an organization the more voraciousits appetite for resources. Sooner or later everything that is to bedone must be translated into its resource equivalent.

A work plan should specify not only the human, physical, andfiscal resources needed, but also checkpoints and monitoring pro-cedures for the rate and manner in which the resources will beused to reach the objective. People with specialized skills tocontribute to goal achievement must be identified and assignedgiven roles and responsibilities in the productive process. Of noless significance are the facilities, equipment, and monies allocatedto support work tasks and the work plan.

It would be unusual if a work plan were formulated without anylimitations on the personnel to be employed, space to be utilized,or money to be expended. The various phases of managing forresults are not mutually exclusive. The selection of one alternativestrategy over another may well be based on the time or resourcesconstraints within the organization. Prudent program planning rejectsthe notion that unlimited resources are available to accomplish anyand all objectives.

The design and subsequent monitoring of plans for resourceallocation are part of the results management subsystem for MBO/R.Some writers prefer to think of resource allocation as budgeting.50

But the development of a budget document is only one phase of aresource management plan. Budgeting, more often than not, isinterpreted to mean planning for fiscal resource utilization; it mayinclude other dimensions such as accounting, unit cost analysis, andauditing. However, the quality of human resources is seldom re-vealed in the budget document. There is, therefore, a preference inthis volume for the term allocating resources over budgeting.

Monitoring

The process of monitoring is important to managing by objec-tives or, more specifically, managing for results. Monitoringgathering data on progress toward achieving resultscalls for theestablishment of checkpoints, stated in terms of time intervals aswell as work process at a given place or a known point in produc-tion. The monitoring process may rest on the generation of periodicreports for key supervisory and administrative personnel. The re-porting mechanism is part of the communication system that informskey personnel of progress and facilitates decision making aboutwhether or not the organization is locked onto objectives or strayingoff course.

Deciding on types and frequency of reports and reviews is amajor challenge in the results management phase of MBO/R. If

care is not exercised, the information feedback loop, or communica-tion system, can generate a multiplicity of reports that can drownmanagers and others in details, paperwork, and red tape. It takestime to process and complete forms as well as to revise them. Datafrom studies in business and industry indicate that the flood ofpaperwork generated in the results management phase of MBO/Ris a major irritant. It can lead to confusion and become dysfunc-tional within the system.

Monitoring usually calls for the establishment of work standardsfor measuring (a) progress toward achievement of objectives and(b) the quality of performance of personnel. Some argue that workstandards are not appropriate to MBO/R and that the emphasisshould be on self-control and self-management. They imply thatwork standards may reduce the motivational impact of MBO/R orproduce mere compliance with minimum demands.

Controlling To Remain on Target

The word controlling is often misinterpreted. As used herein,it denotes that dimension of the results management phase which

51

helps the organization maintain progress toward its objectives bysensing major deviations from the intended course and institutingcorrective action. In this sense, monitoring, or gathering data onprogress toward objectives, is the initial step in controlling. Atwhat point corrective action appears to be necessary will de-pend on what degree of variance trom the desired goal will betolerated. The response to variations beyond the allowable normsmay be simply an increased allocation of resources c r closer super-vision. Or it may be a more drastic measure, that is, a significantdeparture from the intended game plan, when the organization hasstrayed too far off course. Crisis action with new strategies or adrastic downward revision of expectations may be necessary inextreme cases. The point is that a realistic effort at managing forresults must anticipate the possibility of veering off target. Anexecutive in one position, or a central control staff, must assumemajor responsibility for determining when the organization is missingits goals and must be prepared to institute the strategy changes,major or minor, that constitute corrective action.

Evaluation of programs or personnel at the end of a statedoperational period is yet another dimension of controlling to ensurehitting targets. In this sense, the appraisal-by-results approach forthe managerial staff, discussed in Chapter 2, becomes an integralpart of the controlling phase of managing for results. Appraisal byresults, rather than being just another way to pin a label on anadministrator stating that he is effective, ineffective, or somewherein between, takes on a wider meaning when it is related to organiza-tional activities. It suggests that individuals as well as strategiesMust change if the objectives are to be achieved.

Managing for results is quite similar to the general manage-ment principles or processes that were in vogue for years prior tothe advent of MBO/R. But MBO/R sharpens the focus, for it placesthe emphasis on results. Without a results management design andoperation, MBO/R would degenerate into a meaningless 'ixercise ofspinning objectives without any real and practical way of attainingthem.

There is ample evidence that despite the apparent logic andsimplicity of the MBO/R management style and system, it demandsvery hard work. An extended period of learning how_to managewith objectives and for results is necessary in most organizations.Wikstrom noted that the consensus of those who had actually triedMBO/R in practice was that "it usually takes a man a couple ofyears before he is truly proficient at determining what he needs to doand now to do it, and using these goals and plans as his controlsover what he does." ' Because of the propensity of administrators in52

schools, as elsewhere, to think in terms of the work itself ratherthan its results, "learning to state an objective in terms of resultsrather than activities is usually a process of gradual improvement." 2Based on interviews with companies implementing MBO, Wikstromconcluded, "not all managers learn to manage with objectivesequally well." 3 Some never learn to operate in the MBO/R mode,even after considerable efforts to promote it.

It is easier for an administrator to articulate some kind of anoutcome statement than to live with his objectives in day-by-dayoperations supported by a results management subsystem. Theformalization of MBO/R into a system of management calls for anumber of adjustments in organizational structure as well as newcompetencies among managerial personnel. More will be saidabout the relationship between MBO/R and "organization develop-ment" near the end of this chapter. How to help the professionalacquire new administrative competencies will be dealt with inChapter 6.

Operating with MBO/R in EducationWhat does MBO/R look like in an educational institution? It

depends in part on where you look. At this early point in the historyof MBO/R in education, it is difficult to describe with precision a"typical" system, for MBO/R practices among the pioneers arewidely divergent.

The number of school districts interested in or trying to imple-ment MBO, with or without the 'R' for results, is fairly small. Thepooling of information and the best informed opinion suggests thatless than 1 percent of local school districts and about ten stateeducation agencies are at various stages in implementing what theyhave identified as "management by objectives." This "guesstimaete"was derived from personal informal inquiries; consultation with theAASA Educational Research Service, Dr. William H. Curtis of theAASA National Academy, and Professor Fred Schwarz of the Exten-sion Division of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Extension; andan informal national search using national contacts. There are nohard data as yet that would stand up under critical analysis.

As indicated in earlier chapters, not everyone talking aboutMBO describes the same thing. Very few, if any, refer to what theyare doing as MBO/R or EBO/R. The failure to add the 'R' does notin itself mean that managing for results is ignored. But a review ofexisting practices does suggest that while there are school systemsmaking significant efforts to prepare objectives and demonstrating

53

an interest in or claiming to operate in the MBO mode, relativelylittle effort (if any) is being expended in managing for results. TheMBO/R concept is a new one in education, and much remainsto be done.

Growing interest in MBO among school executives of all ranksis evidenced by the increasing popularity of two- to five-day MBOworkshops and seminars sponsored by the AASA National Academyfor School Executives, the management institutes of the Universityof Wisconsin Extension Division, and other national, state, andregional agencies. Departments of educational administration inuniversities are just beginning to offer formal course work in MBO/Ras applied to education.

What are the "early innovators" doing under the name of MBOor MBO/R? It would be inappropriate to name specific school sys-tems or to describe actual operations. Some five years ago therewere premature descriptions of how PPBS was implemented inspecified districts. More recent articles on PPBS in schools makemore modest claims. Premature releases (in MBO/R in specificdistricts may be inaccurate if for no other reason than that practicesare changing rapidly.

Nonetheless, a brief analysis of the kinds of practices in edu-cational administration that go under the name of MBO or MBO/Rmay be of some value to those seeking to move in this direction.Almost all practitioners recognize the importance of generatingobjectives for the school system as a whole and for administratorsat various levels in the hierarchy. Often a management team willassume responsibility for leading the planning of long-term andshort-term goals. In some cases teachers are involved with prin-cipals in developing instructional and administrative objectives for aschool building. The outcome statements are more often than notreduced to writing. Some of these written declarations of intent anddirection are lengthy and detailed; others are briefer and moregeneral. The most common practice among the early educationalpioneers in MBO/R is clearly the development and enunciation ofstatements of educational objectives.

To repeat, MBO is not management-by-any-kind-of-objectives.The quality and therefore the usefulness of outcomes statementsvary considerably among school systems today. Likewise, howthese declarations of objectives influence administrative proceduresand operations is rather vague. Relatively few systems have as yetdesigned and operated with a results management subsystem tofollow through on objectives generated. Writers on the use of MBOin business and industry indicate that a period of four to five yearsis necessary for a fully operational system. Most of the early pioneers54

of MBO in education have less than three years of experience behindthem.

More school systems use MBO/R as an appraisal-by-resultsapproach for the performance evaluation of principals than for anyother single purpose. Thus MBO/R in practice often looks like aspecial kind of performance appraisal system It appears easiestto begin at this point. The approach includes what some call a"hard-nosed" dialogue between a principal and his immediate su-perior, who may be the assistant superintendent or director of ele-mentary or secondary education. The end result of this dialoguemay be an agreement upon what priorities will prevail and whatevidence of productivity the principal will show during a statedperiod of time. More often than not the dialogue will be reduced towriting; if the description of accomplishments is rather detailed, theagreement may take the foim of a management contract. Theagreement, which provides the basis for reviews of progress at statedintervals, may be revised at appropriate times by mutual consent.

The use of appraisal by results for appraisal of superintendentsby boards of education so far remains relatively rare. A similarapproach, which does not carry the name of MBO, is referred to as"evaluation by objectives." Three to five objectives are set for theadministrator, and activities consistent with them are described inoutline form. The assessment of the degree +o which the per-formance objectives have been satisfied is a cooperative or dualresponsibility of appraisee and appraisor. "Appraisal by results"and "evaluation by objectives" are very similar in spirit and areconsistent with MBO/R, whether the name is used or not.

There is some evidence that a few school systems are usingMBO/R as a way to motivate administrators to become self-starters.This has been hard to translate in operation beyond special admin-istrator inservice workshops stressing human relations, sensitivitytraining, or motivation in general. If extensive training-by-objectivesprograms exist for school administrators, the writer is not awareof them.

A few local schools tend to equate MBO with program budget-ing, or vice versa, perhaps because of the reliance of both outcomes-oriented management systems on statements of objectives. The twosystems can be distinguished on the basis of major emphases andend products.

Many variations of MBO are practiced by state departments ofeducaticn. In some cases the term MBO is used to introduce ac-countability and to mandate the use of PPBS in all local districts.In other instances it may be an internal management system toincrease the productivity of state supervisors and others by calling

55

for a clearer definition of the objectives of each unit within the state

agency. Here the professional staff members of each state education

agency unit become involved in the production and clarification of

objectives.Judging from the information at hand, it seems that relatively

few local school districts, state education agencies, or institutions

of higher learning are considering or actually implementing a com-

prehensive MBO/R system of management. The few brave pioneers

are mostly in the rudimentary stages of development. In short,

educational institutions are about ten to fifteen years behind industry

in the development and practice of MBO/R.

Operational Problems and PitfallsIt should not be assumed that what's happening with MBO/R

in ir.Justry and business is one big success story. Perusal of the

literature indicates many difficulties and even suggests that for every

success there is a mess. Implementing MBO in business and indus-

try has resulted in confusion and failure in several instances. MBO

is not as simple to put into practice as some would think. Identifica-

tion of operational problems and pitfalls may help educators know

what to expect and perhaps avoid some of the difficulties.

One major problem area about which much has been written

is the type of objectives or goals set and the way they are arrived at.

Odiorne 4 did an especially perceptive job of identifying 20 of the

most common errors in goal setting for MBO:

1. The manager doesn't clarify common objectives for the whole

unit.

2. He sets goals too /ow to challenge the individual subordinate.

3. He doesn't use prior results as a basis for using intrinsic crea-

tivity to find new and unusual combinations.

4. He doesn't clearly shape his unit's common objectives to fit

those of the larger unit of which he is a part.

5. He overloads individuals with patently inappropriate or impos-

sible goals.

6. He fails to cluster responsibilities in the most appropriate posi-

tions.

7. He allows two or more individuals to believe themselves respon-

sible for doing exactly the same thing when he knows thathaving one responsible party is better.

8. He stresses methods of working rather than clarifying individual

areas of responsibility.56

9. He tacitly implies that pleasing him is what really counts, ratherthan achieving the job objective.

10. He makes no policies as guides to action, but waits for results,and issues ad hoc judgments in correction.

11. He doesn't probe to discover what his subordinate's programfor goal achievement will be. He accepts every goal uncriticallywithout seeing a plan for successful achievement.

12. He is too reluctant to add his own (or higher management's)known needs to the program of subordinates.

13. He ignores the very real obstacles the subordinate will face inachieving his goals, including many emergency or routine du-ties that consume time.

14. He ignores the proposed goals or ideas of subordinates andimposes only those he deems suitable.

15. He doesn't think through and act upon what he must do to helphis subordinate succeed.

16. He fails to set intermediate target dates (milestones) by whiuilto measure progress of subordinates.

17. He doesn't introduce new ideas from outside the organizationorencourage subordinates to do so, thereby freezing the statusquo.

18. He fails to permit targets of opportunity to be seized in lieuof objectives that are less important.

19. He is rigid in forbidding the abandonment of goals that proveunfeasible or irrelevant.

20. He doesn't reinforce successful behavior or investigate unsuc-cessful behavior when goals are achieved or missed.

Another problem is the boredom that sets in when managers andothers are assigned the tasks of generating outcomes statements.This will remain a painful task until such time as they develop specialcompetencies in the development of performance-based objectives.

Other pitfalls include the paperwork overload previously dis-cussed and the goal conflict and role conflict that may emerge when_.,personal objectives are not integrated with those of the team andthe organization.

The tendency to stress one objective at the expense of othersis still another problem in operating in the 11BO /R mode. Forexample, an objective to reduce the incidence of high school drop-outs by a given percentage within a stated period of time may sopreoccupy an administrator that faculty morale or instructional ob-jectives get slighted if not ignored. So much stress may be placed

57

on quantitative factors that qualitative factors within an objective maysuffer. Drucker, using business and industry as his frame of refer-ence, recognized the harm and misdirection that could come frompreoccupation with a single objective:

To emphasize only profit, for instance, misdirects managers tothe point where they may endanger the survival of the business.To obtain profit today they tend to undermine the future. Theymay push the most easily saleable product lines and slightthose that are the market of tomorrow. They tend to short-change research, promotion, and other postponable invest-ments. Above all, they shy away from any capital expenditurethat may increase the invested-capital base against whichprofits are measured; and the result is dangerous obsolescenceof equipment. In other words, they are directed into the worstpractices of management.5

Another group of writers declared that "research and experi-ence strongly support the relationship between the degree of asubordinate's acceptance of the objectives approach and his per-ception of its support and reinforcement from top management." 6

Ryan stated:

Anyone who has sincerely tried to establish realistic long-rangeobjectives for his corporation knows how easy it is to get agree-ment on a set of pious and vague goals which look good in theannual reports and in the Christmas message to the employees.However, getting managers of functional departments to worktogether to establish realistic, practical company goals isroughly equivalent to getting four tenors to sing together in

one opera.?

Many school systems begin with the wrong kind of objectives state-ments. Vaguely stated and often pompous outcomes that approachpure rhetoric may be accepted by school administrators just becauseagreement is easily reached on them. These statements are seldom

subjected to analysis for their feasibility of attainment.Lahti summarized reasons other writers have given for MBO's

failures: "lack of commitment; top managers not involved; poorimplementation methods; little coaching and assistance; no fol-low-up (monitoring); objectives handed to subordinates; creative

goals stifled; fuzzy top policy; overemphasized appraisal; andmechanical approach." 8 To these he added his own observationson why MBO doesn't always work:

The individuals affected by the system are not allowed to par-ticipate fully in strategies of implementation and decisionmaking.

Individuals within an organization do not exchange informationin an "open" climate.

58

J

Individuals are evaluated in terms of personality rather thanachievement.

Individuals are not encouraged to develop self-control, andthere is little emphasis placed upon self-appraisal of results.

Supervision is found to be nonsupportive of both the organiza-tion and its system, as well as of human development.

Individuals are more "blame"-oriented than problem- or results-oriented.

Individuals are not engaged in self-evaluation .9

There are many other reasons why MBO/R may fail to live up toexpectations. There is no intent here to denigrate the system. Butcareful analysis should be given to past failures by anyone seekingto introduce MBO/R.

MBO/R failures in education don't exist as yet for the samereason that MBO/R models don't exist: there aren't enough schoolsystems trying MBO/R. Educational administrators are just begin-ning to translate and adapt MBO/R concepts from business andindustry. Although a handful of school systems have done excep-tional work in pioneering MBO/R, and their experimental effortsdeserve high praise, the temptation to identify them by names andpractices will be resisted. At this point the MBO/R scene is chang-ing so rapidly that no list can remain accurate for very long.Creativity and experimentation must be the order of the day, ratherthan emulation of what other school systems are doing in MBO/R.Experience alone over the next five years will determine which ofthe adaptations of MBO/R in education will survive. Perhaps fiveyears from now another edition of this publication may have some-thing more definitive to say on experiences with MBO/R ineducation.

Organization Development (OD)

Organizations in the private sector appear to be entering apossible fourth stage in operating in the MBO/R mode. This newphase is being referred to as organization development, "a re-orientation of man's thinking and behavior toward his work orga-nization." 10 It is related to what others have called the humanrelations emphasis in management and is based on the notion thatmanaging by objectives and for results may reveal questionableorganizational patterns, personnel relationships, or administrativepractices. In a sense MBO/R becomes a mechanism for spot-lighting needed innovations in the organization's operations and

59

development. Through a program of objectives setting and manage-ment for results, a new set of conditions for the organization may becreated. The restructuring of the organization may be one out-come of OD.

An organization is sometimes viewed as a person in the eyesof the law. It must grow and change or it may die. An organization'sgrowth toward higher levels of effectiveness is related to its devel-opment through restructuring components, improving human rela-tions, or sharpening management practices. Whatever the presentresource alignments and strategies, they are not intended to beends in themselves, but only mechanisms for getting things done.

There is an emerging literature in other fields addressing itselfto the reorientation of thinking and behavior in organizations tobring about more productive and more dynamic mechanisms. Thisreorientation may be facilitated by the use of objectives of appro-priate quality and the design and implementation of a system ofmanaging for results. The idea behind MBO/R is simple; puttingit into practice is a tremendous challenge. Chapter 6 will addressitself to strategies for implementing MBO/R in education.

SUMMARYSetting objectives is not the same as managing by objectives.

Statements of objectives, no matter how good, are not self-executing.A subsystem for managing for results provides the "how-to," "withwhat," and "when" to facilitate working with the "why" to round outan operational MBO/R system.

Managing for results includes programming to produce a workplan, allocating resources to make the work plan go, monitoring todetermine progress, and controlling to keep the organization ontarget. Programming is defined as relating activities to objectives.It also includes identification of alternative strategies, selection ofthe most appropriate ones, and translation of these into detailed workplans and work tasks.

Programs require resources. Allocating resources means dedi-cating specific amounts of time, space, human resources, physicalequipment, and fiscal resources to the pursuit of each objective.The more dynamic the organization, as evidenced by its multiplicityof objectives and its propensity to innovate, the more voracious itsappetite for resources. It would be wrong to assume that resourcesare unlimited. They, like the time frame and the technology avail-able, represent constraints within which goals must be pursued.

Monitoring (gathering data on progress toward goals) helps toascertain whether the organization is locked onto objectives or60

whether it is deviating from predetermined targets. It calls for a setof standards specifying what levels of deviation from predeterminedobjectives are allowable without serious consequences. It incor-porates a feedback loop _from checkpoints in time and at specifiedproduction events. Unfortunately it may involve a reporting systemthat deluges supervisors with a multiplicity of reports that still failtc provide the data needed to make judgments about progresstoward attainment of goals. Measuring the performance of per-scnnel may be a part of ongoing monitoring activity as well.

Monitoring is very closely related to controlling. The differenceis that controlling includes instituting corrective action and making afinal evaluation at a given point in time. Control in this sense doesnot mean domination of one individual by another; rather it impliesassuring that the organization stays on target. Strategies for con-trolling should anticipate problems and generate crisis managementplans to cope with them. Controlling is concerned with keeping theorganization moving toward its objectives and assuring more prudentuse of the limited resources.

Managing for results incorporates general management prin-ciples and processes that were in vogue many years before MBO/R.The new wrinkle is the emphasis on outcomes rather than inputs.MBO/R is not a self-teaching system. It requires hard work: Mostmanagers find it very difficult at first to switch their concern fromactivities per se to results. Some resist learning how to generateappropriate objectives and how to manage by them. Some neveraccept the system.

It is difficult to describe what MBO/R looks like in educationalinstitutions because fewer than one percent of the local schooldistricts and only about ten state education agencies claim to beoperating in the MBO/R mode. Practices vary widely, but a commonfeature is the generation of statements of objectives.

Results management systems are rarities. Most managers viewMBO/R as an appraisal-by-results approach for the performanceevaluation of administrators, particularly principals. Some equateMBO with PPBS in education. School systems are about 10 or 15years behind business and industry in The development of MBO/R,but there is evidence of growing interest in it among educators.

What's happening in business and industry is not one bigsuccess story. It takes time to translate MBO/R into an operationalreality, and many problems are encountered along the way. Oftenthese problems are related to the type of objectives set and the waythey are generated. Sometimes problems are caused by empha-sizing a single objective to the detriment of others. Other reasonsfor the occasional failure of MBO/R range from lack of commitment

61

at the top echelons, to failure to refine operational procedures, toinadequate allocation of resources to implement the new system.

MBO/R is so new in education that it would be imprudent tolist precise numbers, names, and practices. This is a time to becreative and experimental in implementing MBO/R, rather than atime to copy partially developed procedures Experience is neces-sary to determine which adaptations will stand the test of time andprove to be productive.

MBO/R may reveal questionable organizational patterns, per-sonnel relations, and administrative practices. It may be part of anoverall organization development strategy. This appears to be anew dimension or a fourth phase in the evolution of MBO/R inbusiness and industry. It seems likely that a similar evolution willoccur in education.

NOTES

1 Wikstrom, Walter S. "Manage-ment by Objectives Appraised." A

Practical Approach to OrganizationDevelopment Through MBOSelectedReadings. (Edited by A. C. Beck, Jr.,and E. D. Hillmar.) Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley, 1972. p. 216.

2 Ibid., p. 217.

3 Loc. cit.4 Odiorne, G. S. Management

by Objectives. New York: PitmanPublishing Corp., 1965.

Drucker, P. F. The Practice ofManagement. New York: Harper &Row, 1954. p. 62.

6 Tosi, H. L.; Rizzo, J. R.; andCarroll, S. J. "Setting Goals in Man-agement by Objectives." California

62

Management Review 12: 70-78; Sum-mer 1970.

Ryan, J. "How To MBO."Management Today, April 1971. pp.66-69, 126.

8 Lahti, R. E. "Implementing theSystem Means Learning To ManageYour Objectives." College and Uni-versity Business, February 1972. pp.43-46.

9 Ibid.10 Randall, L. K. "Common

Questions and Tentative Answers Re-garding Organization Development."A Practical Approach to OrganizationDevelopment Through MBOSelectedReadings. (Edited by A. C. Beck, Jr.,and E. D. Hilimar.) Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley, 1972. p. 4.

CHAPTER 6

MBO/RImplementation

Strategies

MBO has generated considerable interest, discussion, andpublication in business and industry for almost 20 years. However,successful implementation of MBO and achievement of its fullpotential are still rare, according to many observers of the businessand industrial management scene. One major institution of higherlearning that has been providing MBO training programs for businessand industrial leaders for many years has indicated that about halfthese leaders come to find out what MBO is all about; the other halfcome to learn why their efforts to implement MBO haven't worked.

Talking about innovation or possible great changes is fun.Preparing to do something about it can be exciting. But making itwork after the excitement dies down may be a difficult challenge.The merit of a new management system will be revealed by the newcapabilities gained by the management team and its impact uponoperations in the long and short runs.

MBO/R has not yet been implemented in enough educationalinstitutions for long enough periods of time to permit any judgmentabout its success or failure. For all practical purposes, implementa-tion began only about 1970. Fewer than one percent of the schooldistricts in the United States appear to be involved in any form ofMBO/R.

A General Change StrategyCh,,Inge is a neutral term. It may lead to improvement or it may

be dysfunctional, with nothing to show for its dissipation of resources.Rational approaches to introducing significant change enhance the

63

probability of successful implementation and minimize disruptionsin productivity.

Several general change strategies that have been developedin education can be adapted to the introduction of MBO/R. A gen-eral change model with five major phasesreadiness, pilot orexperimental activity, innovation management, follow -up, and institu-tionalizationcan provide the general guidelines for introducingMBO/R into a school system. A summary of the general change

model appears in Table 6-1.

TABLE 6-1.SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL CHANGE MODEL

Phase I: ReadinessStage 1. Awareness and IdentificationStage 2. Expansion of the Knowledge BaceStage 3. Design of Development StrategiesStage 4. Acpisition of Commitments and ResourcesStage 5. Staff Training and Recruitment (Concept and Skill

Acquisition)

Phase II: Pilot Testing (Experimentation with Limited-Scale Operations)

Stage 1. Selection of Innovation Parts To Be TestedStage 2. Test Bed SelectionStage 3. Trial Period for Field TestsStage 4. Evaluation of Field TestsStage 5. Redesign of Innovation Parts (as necessary)

Phase III: Innovation Management (Full-Scale Operations)Stage 1. Pre-StartupStage 2. Full-Scale OperationsStage 3. Monitoring Operations

Phase IV: Follow-UpStage 1. Interpretation of Data from MonitoringStage 2. Corrective Action ProgramsStage 3. Appraisal of Full-Scale Operation

Phase V: InstitutionalizationStage 1. Refinement of Skills and OperationsStage 2. Incorporation of Innovation into Standard Oper-

ating Procedures

The readiness phase should create an environment favorable

to the search for, consideration of, and preparation for neededchange. This phase comprises five major stages. The awarenessstage is the initial one. Members of the community, school board,

and staff must be aware of the existence of set of ideas or amanagement system (e.g., MBO/R) that represents a departure from

current practices Awareness may be generated by reading about64

the new system, hearing about it from a colleague, or attending a

program or seminar where the ideas are formally preseited. Aware-ness may be stimulated, in part, in response to the f.it need for asignificant change in operating complex educational ostitutions.

The next stage of the readiness phase is comprenension of thebasic concepts, or knowing in sufficient detail what it is you hope tochange to. Rhetoric may be satisfactory in the awareness stage,concerned primarily with identifying new practices, but a greaterdepth of understanding and some skills are needed if anything is

actually to be done.The expansion of the knowledge base about the new adminis-

trative practice may lead to the generation of plans or strategies forintroducing into the system what is thus far simply a good idea.Stage three is the design of development strategy. At this pointconsiceration may be given to employing a consultant who knows

MBO/R, can help with the design of the development strategy, andcan contribute later to the MBO/R training programs. Obviously thequality of the person selected is important. He Pr she must not onlyknow the substance of the ideas surrounding MBO/R, but alsounderstand how it may best be introduced and what modifications

are needed to moke it work in a particular educational institution.The development strategy must consider the fact that it is peoplewho are being changed as well as things. There must be a strategyfor obtaining commitments from those in positions of authority and

those who will be affected by MBO/R. Innovations demand re-sources above and beyond those requi'ed for regular operations.The magnitude of resources allocated to the implementation of

MBO/R is one indicator of sincerity or depth of commitment.The fo Irth stage of the readiness phase is the obtaining of

actual corn' .fitment or support for MBO/R from key personnel, asevidenced by a written policy statement or other declaration and thebudgeting of resources for introducing and operating with MBO/R.Commitments in writing are needed from the legislative body orschool board, key staff members, and community leaders. Without

support from the top echelons, MBO/R may be abandoned at the

first sign of problems. At this stage an "MBO/R task force" may be

organized to execute the strategies and to follow through or com-mitments to introduce MBO/R. ,f

The final stage in the readiness phase is training and recruit-

ment of the specialized staff members needed to make MBO/R work.This phase is based on the assumption that there will be less re-sistance. to MBO/R and greater probability of successful operation

if people are provided an opportunity to gain the concepts and skills

needed to operate in the new mode. MBO/R is not likely to be65

successful unless staff members have the entry-level competenciesto make it work. What the objectives and substance of a training pro-gram should be, when it should be offered, and by whom all requiredefinition. The school system may design and operate its ownMBO/R training program or it may use the resources of its statedepartment of education, a university, or the AASA National Academyfor School Executives. The training may involve workshops andseminars, visits to schools experimenting with MBO/R, and/orindividualized MBO/R reading programs. The special training pro-gram carries the implicit assumption that the school system willdevelop its own cadre of MBO/R talent. It may be supplementedby an effort to recruit individuals outside the system with uniquecompetencies in MBO/R.

The setting of realistic objectives for the introduction of MBO/Rin light of conditions existing within the school system is vital. In

other words, one should follow MBO/R principles in implementingMBO/R, to allow the staff to see it in action and so gain a practicalunderstanding of its operational implications. The district needs toknow its "base case" (Where it is now in terms of operational pro-cedures and staff skills) before it can determine how far it must goto establish MBO/R.

The readiness phase can be said to be completed when some-thing to change has been identified, when those to be affected bythe change are willing to try it, when resources and other commit-ments to implement the change have been obtained, and when thepersonnel who will operate the innovation have acquired the neces-sary entry-level skills to engage at least in pilot testing. This level ofreadiness may take as little as three months or as long as a yearto achieve.

The second phase of the general change model is pilot test-ingexperimentation in the real world. MBO/R should not beintroduced in all operating departments of an education system untilit has been tried out, and "debugged" if necessary. In pilot testing,one or more pieces of MBO/R may be tried in the total system, orall of MBO/R may be tried in one or more parts of the system.In addition to eliminating the "bugs" from an MBO/R approachthat looks good on paper, the pilot testing phase is a means ofdeveloping a cadre of experienced leaders for further extension ofMBO/R through the entire system. It is like establishing a beach-head. The goal is to identify the divisions with the kinds of personnelthat make successful operation with MBO/R most probaole.

Stage one of the pilot testing phase is the selection of the partor dimension of MBO/R to be field tested: appraisal-by-results,management contracts or position descriptions by objectives, moti-66

vation by objectives, the systems interpretation, or some otherdimension. Field testing of these aspects of MBO/R may be carriedon' simultaneously or sequentially-in different parts of the schoolsystem. Another approach is for'one division or department to focuson procedures and skills needed to generate effective objectives,while another focuses on the design and operation of the system ofmanaging for results; these two halves of MBO/R are then puttogether at the end of the trial period. Designing the precise strategyto be followed can be the responsibility of a task force or otheragency specifically charged with introducing MBO/R into the educa-tional institution.

Stage two of pilot testing is selection of the test bed, that is,the particular division or department that will try out a part of MBO/R.Criteria for selection must be developed. Stage three is the actualtrial period for the field test. The pilot testing may cover a periodof a year or more. Stage four is the evaluation of test results at thetermination of the initial field test. The objective should not be toproduce a perfect operating system at the end of pilot testing, butrather to identify the sources of resistance and the kinds of problemsthat must be overcome in operating with a new management system.The final stage of phase two is redesign of the tested dimension(s)of MBO/R to better fit the needs of the institution.

Phase three of the general change moael is implementation of theinnovation (here the MBO/R mode) in the total system. In this phaseit is assumed that staff members have acquired the necessary skillsand understandings to make the system work and that most of thebugs have been identified and eliminated during the pilot testing.Phase three has three stages. In the first ("pre-startup"), staff de-velopment is completed and schedules and materials are rearrangedas necessary to operate in MBO/R. The second stage is actualfull-scale operations; the third is monitoring operations.

Phase four, the follow-up, could be considered an extension ofphase three. It would be unrealistic to expect trouble-free operationsduring the first full year, even though considerable care was exer-cised in both the readiness and the pilot testing phases. Problemswill emerge, and a built-in mechanism must be designed to over-come them. This is the primary contribution of the follow-up phase.This fourth phase also comprises three stages. The first is interpreta-tion of data gathered during the monitoring stage of phase three.The second stage is the institution of corrective action programs tomaintain skills at a high level or to develop new ones. The third stageis final appraisal of the full-scale operation.

Howell has estimated that it takes four to five years for a busi-ness or industry to operate successfully in a given mode such as

67

MBO/R.' This is a realistic time estimate for school systems as well.Assuming a year spent on readiness and another on pilot testing,the follow-up phase for operations would cover at least a two-yearperiod.

Phase five of the general change model is institutionalization.At this point the innovation becomes a part of standard operatingprocedures. MBO/R emerges as the established pattern acceptedby all personnel. Usually institutionalization occurs four or fiveyears following readiness. Relatively fewer special resources orsafeguards are necessary to make the system go once it is institu-tionalized, because it has become an integral part of operations andoperational personnel. Institutionalization can come only from con-siderable experience and operation in the MBO/R mode.

Resource DemandsIt is unrealistic to expect MBO/R to be introduced without more

and different resources. How much more and how different willvary from district to district. It is better to think in terms of whyadditional resources are needed than to prescribe a given sum ofmoney, amount of space, or number of personnel.

To illustrate, a certain number of people and amount of timemust be dedicated to MBO/R introduction and operation. There arereports to be made on the progress of introducing this system. Thedesign of a training program, employment of necessary trainingexperts, and employment of temporary replacements for staff mem-bers engaged in special training will call for the expenditure of funds.Resources are needed to employ one or more consultants to workin the system for a period of one or more years. The professionallibrary may have to be expanded to include the necessary books andperiodicals related to the use and introduction of MBO/R. Resourcesmay need to be allocated to informing members of the communityas to what MBO/R is all about.

The point is that the budgeting of resources needed to makeMBO/R a reality should be related to objectives to be satisfiedduring each phase of the changeover. The magnitude of resourcesconsumed in any given year will vary with the speed with whichthe system is introduced. Rather sizable resource allocations mustbe made in a given fiscal year for crash programs.

MBO/R Entry into Business and IndustryBeck and Hillmar 2 suggest two possible beginning points for

implementing MBO/R in business and industry: individual goal68

setting and team goal setting. Their other suggestions for the earlystages of MBO/R could likewise be adapted to education:

1. "Don't insist on perfection at first." Crude objectives ormeasurements, even if not completely accurate, can help youget started.

2. Concentrate on one or two major results (such as cost reduc-tion, or waste reduction, or better scheduled performance).

3. Use MBO/R on one project at a time, preferably with a limitednumber of individuals involved.

4. Set objectives for only part of a job in the first year if this isall that can be expected.

5. Start working with problems that are easily measurable andhave standards that are not too difficult to determine or agreeupon.

6. Encourage supervisors to provide early feedback and recogni-tion in the beginning stages.

7. Put MBO/R into effect on an individual basis if there aresubordinates who are not read" for it.

8. Start MBO/R in only one department or part of the organization.

9. Follow the recommended objective-setting process, and makesure objectives agreed upon are "understandable, achievable,measurable, and feasible."

10. Make sure managers follow through until their objectives areachieved or it is agreed that they are not attainable.

11. Use formal and informal methods to teach MBO/R concepts:in-house training programs, consulting services, and perhapseven a printed manual.

12. Don't be afraid to "change certain management systems, pro-cedures, or organizational elements that may be barriers tosuccessful implementation of the MBO/R concept." 3

What Makes It Gc?Leadership is one of the prime requisites for successful imple-

mentation of MBO/R. Leadership has many dimensions, such asknowing what changes are needed, stimulating movement towa;c1desired objectives, and facilitating their attainment A positive atti-tude toward MRO/R also helps to make it go. This must be combinedwith patience when confronted with resistance by certain personnelwho find it uncomfortable to operate in the MBO/R mode or fee!frustrated when prot 'ems emerge.

69

Another requisite is planninghaving a set of strategies for theintroduction of the MBO/R mode The strategies are made moreeffective by commitments from the top as well as the operationallevels These commitments must be accompanied by dedication tomaking the system work. Without basic changes in attitude, all theresources and training programs may well come to naught

It would be hard to overemphasize the importance of theexperience factor in MBO/R. It takes time and involvement in anoperation to perfect it. You never reach perfection the first timearound in MBO/R or anything else.

Where To Begin in Education

MBO/R is easier to implement in business and industry than inservice-oriented organizations. Multipurpose institutions pose prob-lems in the identification and measurement of outcomes. Obviously,MBO/R will not be easy to implement in education.

Reference was made earlier to the problem of semantics:"management-by-objectives" turns off some educators, particularlyinstructional personnel. EBO/R, education-by-objectives-and-re-sults, was recommended as a more generally acceptable term thatbetter indicates the application of the system to the instructional aswell as management dimensions of education. The relationships ofMBO/R, management-by-objectives-and-results, and IBO/R, in-struction-by-objectives-and-results, are shown in Figure 6-1.

One dimension of MBO/R or IBO/R may be used as a startingpoint for implementing EBO/R. The close relationship betweenPPBS and BBO/R may suggest BBO/R as a point of departure tothose so inclined. It is seldom prudent or possible to change alldimensions of a school system in the first year.

-......./-".

Benefits

The benefits that can accrue to schools operating in the MBO/Rmode are similar to those that accrue to other organizations. Thefollowing four are drawn from Odiorne:4

1. "MBO from the top management perspective is a direct attemptto build into management systems an unremitting attention topurpose." EBO could prevent or alleviate the natural tendency"to start out toward momentarily clear goals, but shortly tobecome so enmeshed with activity that the goal is lost"

2. "MBO attacks directly the gap of expectations and directlydefines 'success' in specific output terms." The typical princi-

70

FIG

UR

E 6

-1.E

DU

CA

TIO

N-B

Y-O

BJE

CT

IVE

S-A

ND

-RE

SU

LTS

(EB

O/R

): M

AN

AG

ER

IAL

AN

D IN

ST

RU

CT

ION

AL

CO

MP

ON

EN

TS

EBO/R

IMBO/R

1IBO/R

I1

1I

I

SBO/R PMBO/R PBO/R

BBO/R

...adaBO/R

II

II

PABO/R

PDBO/R

PPBS

I1

II

TBO/R

LBO/R

CBO/R

...adiBO/R

EB

O/R

= M

BO

/R +

IBO

/RM

BO

/R =

SB

O/R

+ P

MB

O/R

+ P

BO

/R +

BB

O/R

+...

ada

BO

/RIB

O/R

= T

BO

/R +

LB

O/R

+ C

BO

/R +

... a

diB

O/R

Whe

re:

EB

O/R

= E

duca

tion-

by-O

bjec

tives

-and

-Res

ults

MB

O/R

= M

anag

emen

t-by

-Obj

ectiv

es-a

nd-R

esul

tsS

BO

/R =

Sup

ervi

sion

-by-

Obj

ectiv

es-a

nd-R

esul

tsP

MB

O/R

.= P

erso

nnel

Man

agem

ent-

by-O

bjec

tives

-and

-Res

ults

PA

BO

/R =

Per

sonn

el A

ppra

isal

-by-

Obj

ectiv

es-a

nd-R

esul

tsP

DB

O/R

= P

ositi

on D

escr

iptio

n-by

-Obj

ectiv

es-a

nd-R

esul

tsP

BO

/R =

Pla

nnin

g-by

-Obj

ectiv

es-a

nd-R

esul

tsB

BO

/R =

Bud

getin

g-by

-Obj

ectiv

es-a

nd-R

esul

ts

PP

BS

= P

lann

ing-

Pro

gram

min

g-B

udge

ting

Sys

tem

adaB

O/R

= "

Any

dim

ensi

on o

f adm

inis

trat

ion"

-by-

Obj

ectiv

es-a

nd-R

esul

tsIB

O/R

= In

stru

ctio

n-by

-Obj

ectiv

es-a

nd-R

esul

tsT

BO

/R =

Tea

chin

g-by

-Obj

ectiv

es-a

nd-R

esul

tsLB

O/R

= L

earn

ing-

by-O

bjec

tives

-and

-Res

ults

CB

O/R

= C

urric

ulum

-by-

Obj

ectiv

es-a

nd-R

esul

tsad

iBO

/R =

"A

ny d

imen

sion

of i

nstr

uctio

n"-b

y -

Obj

ectiv

es-

and

- R

esul

ts

pal and superintendent, or any other pair of subordinate and

superordinate school executives, are not apt to reach agreementon the output expectations for the subordinate when left tothemselves or without a special mechanism to do so. EBO/Rcould reduce role and goal conflicts between teachers and ad-

ministrators as well as among administrators at various levels

in the hierarchy.3. "MBO should improve overall organization performance and

increase the level of participation." Prolonged observations ofleading firms led Odiorne to declare that "in the more success-ful firms (which achieve charted goals) more people are awareof their goals than in less successful organizations " The

effectiveness of a school system should improve when objec-tives and expectations are known and accepted by everyonein it.

4. "MBO should achieve . . . individual improvement and growth."A principa's (or any oti-ser school executive's) performanceshould improve where his objectives and expectations areknown and accepted by him and his immediate superior.

SUMMARYEvidence from efforts in business and industry over the past 10

to 15 years suggests that it is easier to talk about MBO/R than it isto implement it. A general change strategy can provide the basicguidelines for introducing MBO/R into a school system. It has fivemajor phases: readiness, pilot testing, innovation management, fol-low-up, and institutionalization. The readiness phase can be sub-divided into five stages. The first is awareness of MBO/R on thepart of staff members, the school board, and the community. The

second calls for expansion of the knowledge base about MBO/R.The design of development strategy for bringing about the necessarychanges in people, obtaining commitments, scheduling resources,etc., is the third stage of the readiness phase. Actual acquisition of

the commitments and necessary resources signals the completionof the fourth stage. The fifth stage is staff training and recruitment.The readiness phase is completed when the entry-level skills neces-sary to operate in the MBO/R mode have been acquired.

The second phase, pilot testing, seeks to debug operations.Subdivisions of this experimental phase range from selection of thepart of the innovation to be tested, through identification of the testbed, field testing, and evaluation, to redesigning of the innovation.The readiness phase may take as long as a year, and pilot testing

should continue for at least another year.72

The third phase. is management of the innovation during full-scale operations. The follow-up phase is related to it and seeks tocope with any problems and special needs as they emerge. Theinstitutionalization phase starts with refinement of skills and cul-rninatt. s with incorporation of the innovation as part of the standardoperaiin.] procedures.

The many suggestions to be found in the literature aboutimplementation of MBO in business and industry can be adapted toeducation. They emphasize that perfection should not be demandedin any dimension of MBO/R when first starting. Leadership, a posi-tive attitude toward MBO/R. patience, planning, key commitments,adequate resources, and training are needed to make the system go.

MBO/R will not be easy to implement in education; it is difficultto implement in any service-oriented organization where objectivesare many and outcomes are difficult to identify and measure. EBO/Ris recommended as a term that overcomes some semantic problemsin applying MB' to education. Whatever the problems of introducingany dimensior of EBO/R, the system offers many benefits to anyorganization that adopts it.

NOTES

I Howell, R. A. "A Fresh Look atManagement by Objectives." BusinessHorizons, Fall 1967. p. 58.

2 Beck, A. C., Jr., and Hillmar,E. D., editors. A Practical Approachto Organization Development ThroughMBOSelected Readings. Reading,

Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1972 pp.274-78.

Ibid., pp. 277-78.

i Odiorne, G S. "Managementby Objectives." College and Univer-sity Journal 10: 13-15; March 1971.

73

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHYManagement by Objectives and Results

BooksBatten, J. D. Beyond Management by

Objectives. New York: AmericanManagement Association, 1966.

Beck, A. C., and Hil !mar, E. D., editors.A Practical Approach to Organiza-tion Development Through MBOSelected Readings. Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley, 1972,

Blake, R. R., and Mouton, J. S. TheManagerial Grid. Houston: Gulf Pub-lishing, 1964.

Costello, T. W., and Zalkind, S. S.Psychology in Administration. Engle-wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,1963.

Drucker, P. F. Managing for Results.New York: Harper-Row, 1964.

The Practice of Manage-ment. New York: Harper-Row, 1954.

Herzberg, W. Work and the Nature ofMan. New York: The World Publish-ing Co., 1966.

; Mausner, B.; and Snyder-man, B. B. The Motivation To Work.Second edition. New York: Wiley &Sons, 1959.

Hughes, C. L. Goal Setting: Key toIndividual and Organizational Effec-tiveness. New York: American Man-agement Association, 1965.

Humble, John W. Management byObjectives in Action. London: Mc-Graw-Hill, 1968.

Knezevich, S. J. Program Budgeting(PPBS): A Resource Allocation De-cision System for Education. Berke-ley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1973.

Likert, R. Human Organization: ItsManagement and Value. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Per-sonality. New York: Harper & Bros.,1954.

McConkey, Dale D. How To Manageby Results. New York: AmericanManagement Association, 1967.

Updating the Manage-ment Process. New York:, AmericanManagement Association, 1971.

McGregor, D. M. The Human Side ofEnterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill,1960.

. The Professional Mana-ger. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Morrisey, G. I. Management by Ob-jectives and Results. Reading,Mass : Addison-Wesley, 1970.

Odiorne, G. S. Management by Ob-jectives. New York: Pitman Pub-lishing Corp., 1965.

. Management Decisionsby Objectives. Englewood Cliffs,N J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

. Training by Objectives.New York: Macmillan, 1970.

Reddin, W. J. Effective Managementby Objectives. McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Scanlan, B. K. Results Managementin Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Man-agement Center of Cambridge, 1967.

Schleh, E. C. Management by Results,New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

Stewart, N. Strategies of Managingfor Results. New York: Parket Pub-lishing Co., 1966.

Valentine, R. F. Performance Objec-tives for Managers. New York:American Management Association,1966.

ArticlesBoston, R. E. "Management by Ob-

jectives: A Management System forEducation." Educational Technology12: 49-51; May 1972.

Brown, Richard. "The Truth AboutMBO." Wisconsin Journal of Edu-cation, September 1972. p. 12.

Graen, G. B. "Addendum to an Em-pirical Test of the Herzberg Two-Factor Theory." Journal of AppliedPsychology 60 (6): 551-55; 1966.

Granger, C. H. "The Hierarchy ofObjectives." Harvard Business Re-view 42 (3): 63-74; 1964.

Heier, W. D. "Implementing an Ap-praisal by Results Program." Per-sonnel, November-December 1970.pp. 24-32.

Herzberg, Frederick. "One More Time:How Do You Motivate Employees?"Harvard Business Review 46: 53-62;January-February 1968.

Howell, R. A. "A Fresh Look at Management by Objectives." BusinessHorizons, Fall 1967. pp. 51-58.

Huse, E. F. "Putting in a ManagementDevelopment Program That Works."California Management Review 9(2): 73-80; 1966.

75

Knezevich, S. J. "MBO: Its Meaningand Application to Educational Ad-ministration." Education, Septem-ber-October 1972. pp. 12-21.

Knowles, H. P., and Saxberg, B. 0."Human Relations and the Natureof Man." Harvard Business Review,April 1967. pp. 22-40, 172-78.

Kuritoff, A. H. "An Experiment inManagement: Putting Theory Y tothe Test." Personnel 40(6): 3-17;1963.

Lahti, R. E. "Implementing the Sys-tem Means Learning To ManageYour Objectives." College and Uni-versity Business, February 1972. pp.43-46.

Lee, J. A. "Behavioral Theory vs.Reality." Harvard Business Review49: 20-28, 157-59; March-April 1971.

Levinson, A. "Management by WhoseObjectives?" Harvard Business Re-view 48: 125-34; July-August 1970.

Mahler, W. R. "A 'Systems' Approachto Managing by Objectives." Sys-tems and Procedures Journal 16(5):12-19; 1965.

McConkey, Dale D. "Management byObjectives: How To Measure Re-sults." Management Review 54(3):60-63; 1965.

"Staff Objectives AreDifferent." Personnel Journal, July1972.

"20 Ways To Kill Man-agement by Objectives." Manage-ment Review, October 1972. pp. 4-13.

. "Writing Measurable StaffObjectives." SAM Advanced Man-agement Journal, January 1972.

McGregor, D. M. "Do ManagementControl Systems Achieve Their Pur-pose?" Management Review 56(2):4-18; 1967.

McIntyre, J. M. "Managing for Re-sults." Management Personnel Quar-terly, 1965.

Myers, M. S. "Conditions for ManagerMotivation. ' Harvard Business Re-view 44(1): 58-71; 1966.

. "Who Are Your MotivatedWorkers?" Harvard Business Review42(1): 73-88; 1964.

Oberg, W. "Make Performance Ap-praisal Relevant." Harvard BusinessReview 50: 61-67; January-February1972.

76

Odiorne, G. S. "Management by Ob-jectives." College and UniversityJournal 10: 13-15; March 1971.

Ohm, Robert E. Organizational Goals:A Systems Approach. A paper pre-sented at the 20th Annual NationalConference of Professors of Edu-cational Administration Meeting.Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univer-sity, 1966. p. 1.

Porter, L. W., and Lowher, E. E. "WhatJob Attitudes Tell About Motivation."Harvard Business Review, January-February 1968. pp. 118-26.

Raia, A. P. "A Second Look at Man-agement Goals and Controls." California Management Review 7(4;:49-58; 1966.

Ryan, Joseph. "How To MBO." Man-agement Today, April 1971. pp. 666-69, 126.

Schaeffer, R. H. "Managing by TotalObjectives." Management Bulletin(American Management Associa-tion), 1964. p. 52.

Simpkins, John. "Planning for Man-agement by Objectives." Systemsand Procedures Journal 17(1): 32-37; 1966.

Stringer, R. A. "Achievement Motiva-tion and Management Control."Personnel Administration, November-December 1966.

Tosi, H. L. "Management Develop-ment and Management by Objec-tives and Interrelationship." Man-agement Personnel Quarterly 4(2):21-26; 1965.

, and Carrol% S. "Man-agerial Reactions to Managementby Objectives." Academy of Man-agement Journal, December 1968.pp. 415-26.

; Rizzo, J. R.; and Carroll,S. J. "Setting Goals and Manage-ment by Objectives." CaliforniaManagement Review 12: 78; Sum-mer 1970.

Valentine, R. F. "Laying the Ground-work for Goal Setting." Personnel43(1): 34-41; 1966.

Wikstrom, W. S. "Management byObjectives or Appraisal by Results."Conference Board Record 3(7): 27-31;, 1966.